Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 21 March.

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second Time on Tuesday 21 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Enlargement

Mr. Peter Luff: What recent meetings he has had with the President of the European Commission to discuss enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [112868]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary regularly have discussions with the President of the European Commission, including on enlargement. We agree that enlargement is essential if we are to spread peace, stability and shared values throughout the continent. The United Kingdom is committed to a swift and successful enlargement of the European Union, and is working with the European Commission as well as other member states and the candidate countries to achieve this. I have also met Commissioner Verheugen to discuss these matters.

Mr. Luff: I am delighted to be able to agree with the Minister's response to my question, but can he explain how an unreformed common agricultural policy, a single currency and generally deeper integration will assist in the historic purpose that he so eloquently described?

Mr. Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussions and negotiations are a matter for the candidate countries and the Commission. The chapter on agriculture has not yet been opened, although 23 of the 31 chapters of the

acquis have been. They will be tough negotiations, and I am sure and I hope that they will have a successful and swift conclusion.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Although I welcome the emphasis and attention that the Government are giving to the enlargement process, may I urge the Minister and his colleagues to pay particular attention to building up non-governmental organisations and the process of political development not just in countries such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, which have made substantial progress, but in others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, where progress still needs to be made?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is clear that the tough on-going negotiations are important. However, at the level of political engagement between applicant countries and the Commission and the United Kingdom, we must ensure that such links are made. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made a number of visits to the applicant countries, and we regularly receive Ministers from them. It is essential that the positive engagement between the United Kingdom and the applicant countries continues.

Mr. Richard Spring: May I congratulate the Minister on his triumphantly successful and newsworthy speech in Washington? Are those who were present at it now anxious about memory or hearing loss, or both?
Does the Minister agree that there is genuine concern among applicant countries about the potentially spiralling costs of the common agricultural policy and its implications for enlargement?

Mr. Vaz: There will always be discussions on these matters, and clearly agriculture is extremely important. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that the CAP is reformed, but we will not hold up enlargement before it is reformed. Clearly, the agricultural chapters will be watched very carefully.
On my speech in Washington and the misquote that was ascribed to me by The Mail on Sunday, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I know the date of the general election, he will be the first to know so that he can prepare for his redundancy pay.

Uganda

Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Uganda. [112869]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Britain and Uganda have a close relationship and we are supporting Uganda's economic, social and democratic development.

Dr. Naysmith: Will my hon. Friend seek to strengthen our ties with Uganda and will he reassure the House of the importance that we attach to a party-based democracy in that country? Does he believe, as I do, that the World Service of the BBC, which can regularly reach 68 per cent. of the population of Kampala, has a part to play in that?

Mr. Hain: We will certainly strengthen our ties with Uganda, which probably has the best anti-poverty record in Africa, and we are supporting it. I am, however, concerned about a number of aspects of the coming referendum on a no-party democracy. I have expressed them to President Museveni and pointed out the need for a level playing field between those in favour and those against his proposals. It is not obvious that such a level playing field is being provided at the moment. It should include free access to the media, and the role of the BBC World Service, as my hon. Friend says, could be important in that.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Is the Minister aware that there are 15 million people in the Horn of Africa, including 750,000 Ugandans, who are in fear of starvation and disease as a result of the complete crop failure in that area? Can the House be reassured that the Government are planning preparatory measures to deal with this incipient crisis? Is this not yet another example where arranging for bases in Africa to stockpile equipment and foodstuffs against such emergencies might be helpful?

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, and I very much share his concerns about the drought and the worsening food problem in that area, which are affecting countries as far south as Kenya. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is making the preparations that the hon. Gentleman has identified and will make every effort to ensure that the problem is addressed, as she has so effectively done in other parts of Africa.

Kali Mountford: Has my hon. Friend had time to read early-day motion 515, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett)? Is it not worrying that elements in Uganda are flagrantly breaching sanctions, as are some of their neighbours? Does not that inflict terrible damage on the effectiveness of sanctions and international agreements? Is it not time to name and shame?

Mr. Hain: I have indeed seen early-day motion 515, and I am very concerned about the evidence that it contains. In particular, there is a reference to a senior member of Ugandan society. I am sure that President Museveni, who assured me that he would investigate all such reports of sanctions busting involving the supply of UNITA, will want to consider that closely.
One of the reasons why I am travelling to New York straight after Question Time is to join Ambassador Fowler in his campaign with the United Nations to make sure that sanctions are enforced properly to starve UNITA of the fuel, guns, munitions and other supplies that it uses to maintain its murderous war.

EU Enlargement

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What representations he has made to the Commission on the document, "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement"; and if he will make a statement. [112871]

Mr. Christopher Chope: What representations the Government have made to other EU member states on the proposals set out in the Commission's document, "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement"; and if he will make a statement. [112883]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Government are in regular contact with the Commission on a range of issues, including the intergovernmental conference. However, IGC decisions will be made by member states alone. The Government's position is set out in the White Paper laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 15 February.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister not realise that the document completely reverses the current situation in which voting by unanimity is the norm and qualified majority voting is confined to certain policy areas? If he does not take this opportunity to make it clear that he is opposed to that, he will be seen by Brussels as giving it the green light to take control of a huge range of policy areas such as structural and cohesion funds.

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman should calm down. Nobody is trying to take over this country—or, indeed, him. The Commission is entitled to put forward its view, and it has made its opinion clear. We have a short and focused agenda of what we shall achieve. We shall fight very hard at ministerial and official level to make sure that our agenda is accepted. Certainly, in relation to the development of the IGC, everything that the UK has asked for is proceeding according to plan. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the end, as I said, the decision will be taken by the member states and the European Council, and not by the Commission, although of course we always value the Commission's input in those deliberations.

Mr. Chope: Does the Minister not accept that the document shows that the European Commission is using enlargement as a Trojan horse for the creation of a federal European super-state? Can he explain why the Government have not set out in their White Paper any response to the pernicious proposal for European-wide voting lists, which would involve Members of the European Parliament being elected by an electorate of more than 300 million adults? How is that compatible with democracy and national sovereignty?

Mr. Vaz: I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman if he is so obsessed with the idea of a federalist state that he thinks that everything that emanates from Brussels is a step on the long march to a federalist state. We have made our position absolutely clear. I commend the IGC


document to him. If he has not received a copy of the White Paper launched by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 15 February, I will send him two copies.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Are there not two problems bedevilling the enlargement process? One is the failure to reform the common agricultural policy, and the other is the freedom of movement of labour. How can there be such freedom when at this very moment most member states are tightening their immigration laws? What would happen in an enlarged Europe with those tightened regulations?

Mr. Vaz: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the IGC has a short and focused agenda. The purpose of the IGC is to prepare the European Union for enlargement. We have a strict timetable, which means that the IGC must be completed by the end of 2000. If we do not stick to a very short and focused agenda, we will not complete it by the end of 2000, and we will not be ready for enlargement. The issues raised by my hon. Friend are important. We have a tough but fair immigration policy, and we are certain that our European partners will operate on the same basis.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. James Paice: What representations he has received on his White Paper on the IGC; and if he will make a statement. [112872]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): There have been no formal representations on the White Paper, but the response from the applicant countries has been universally positive. Over the past two weeks I have discussed the proposals with the Foreign Ministers of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Romania. All of them welcomed the fact that the Government are giving such a strong commitment to the reforms needed for enlargement.

Mr. Paice: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such matters are outwith the real concerns of the majority of the British people? Their concern is that the European Union as at present constructed is still very imperfect, not least because many countries apparently flout many of the regulations to which they have appended their names. Many British people would not support the extension of the Community into other policy areas, be it the existing 15 member states or the applicant countries. Will the Secretary of State give his commitment that he will concentrate at the IGC on making Europe work better at what it is doing now—including the applicant countries as they join—rather than on any further extension of its activities into policy areas in which it is not currently involved?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that those of us who support the European Union and want Britain's membership of it to be a success also want the European Union to be reformed. That is why one of the issues that we have proposed within the IGC is for reform of the European Court of Justice, particularly its rules of procedure. As I think the hon.
Gentleman may agree, although many of his colleagues may not, it will be easier to achieve that if we can get qualified majority voting as the basis for decision making.

Mr. John Cryer: Are there any areas into which my right hon. Friend would resist the extension of QMV?

Mr. Cook: Yes, there are, and I have repeatedly stated them to the House. They are border controls, defence, social security, taxation, treaty amendments and the financial resources of the European Union.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the IGC and the enlargement programme might be jeopardised by strained relations with Austria within the EU?

Mr. Cook: No, I do not share that anxiety. I have heard the Austrian Foreign Minister address meetings of the European Union, particularly the General Affairs Council. She made clear her commitment, and the commitment of the Chancellor for whom she works, that they will make sure that the business of Europe continues. It is important that those in Austria who want the European Union to succeed and the other member states of the European Union make it plain that we will not allow Mr. Haider's xenophobic views to wreck the European Union.

Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the mainstream majority of the public are strongly opposed to further legislative interference from Brussels? Are there any areas of legislation where the Government are prepared to contemplate the extension of qualified majority voting in the course of the IGC, or is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to rule out today any further erosion of the legislative—I stress "legislative"—veto?

Mr. Cook: On public opinion, I was struck by The Daily Telegraph poll last week, which found that 50 per cent. of the public recognised the Labour party as representing their views on Europe, and that only 34 per cent. recognised the Tory party as representing their views. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that on this one, we seem to have more of the public with us.
Given the right hon. Gentleman's record, I do wish that he would give up posturing as the champion of the veto. He was, after all, not only the Minister who signed the Maastricht treaty, but who said that he was very happy to sign it. He owes it to the House to tell us now whether he is still happy that he signed it. Is he happy that he signed away 30 years of the veto? If he is, will he please give up posturing as the champion of the veto?

Mr. Maude: By harping on the Maastricht treaty, the Foreign Secretary illustrates the central point. He does not understand the difference between driving to the end of the pier, and carrying on driving when he has reached the end. Does he not understand that such equivocation encourages the Commission to introduce proposals such as it is bringing forward later today, which would get rid of the veto on taxation and social security? Is it because


the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Andrew Duff, was right when he said on the IGC recently that the Government's attitude
is in fact much more flexible than certain public declarations suggest …?
Is not that another example of the Foreign Secretary saying one thing in Britain and agreeing to something else in Brussels?

Mr. Cook: I cannot improve on the right hon. Gentleman's metaphor, since he speaks for a party which at the last election constituted the end-of-the-pier show.
We have not only repeatedly explained in the House where we stand on qualified majority voting, but I have published a White Paper on it. Eighty per cent. of decision making in the European Union is done by qualified majority voting, largely as a result of the extension to which Conservative Members agreed when they were in government. There is only limited room for further extension, but we are no more afraid of it than the right hon. Gentleman was when he was a Minister. He once told the House that the number of times we were outvoted "is tiny." That is why it is sometimes in our interest to agree to majority voting.

Gibraltar

Mr. Philip Hammond: If he will make a statement on Anglo-Spanish relations, with particular reference to the issue of Gibraltar. [112873]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Relations with Spain are generally strong. We have a developing dialogue and co-operation across a wide range of bilateral, EU and other international issues.
We believe that co-operation, dialogue and the development of confidence remain the basis for improved relations between the United Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar.
I had the pleasure of meeting His Royal Highness the Crown Prince Felipe on his recent highly successful visit to London.

Mr. Hammond: In welcoming the new Spanish Government, will the Minister make it clear that the UK expects Spain to abide by all its EU treaty obligations on Gibraltar? Spain has been in flagrant and long-term breach of some of those obligations, especially on border controls and transport between Gibraltar and Spain, direct-dial telephone access to Gibraltar from Spain and Gibraltar travel documents. Will the Minister make it clear to the Spanish Government that unless they move quickly and decisively to resolve those problems, Britain will take action under article 227 to ensure their future compliance?

Mr. Vaz: We will maintain our strong relationship with the Spanish Government, and we shall continue to work with them to resolve any outstanding difficulties. We have made our position on border controls absolutely clear. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—and I when I met Commissioner Vitorino—pointed out our anxiety about the way in which Spain approached border controls.
The commissioner told me that the border delay problem was being examined and actively pursued by the Commission. We shall continue to pursue the matter. The way to tackle the problem is not through the sort of dramatic confrontation that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) suggests, however, but by working with Spain and Gibraltar to ensure that all outstanding problems are resolved.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Surely the underlying and inescapable matter that the Government must tackle is the acute democratic deficit for people whose Parliament is ultimately this place but who are not represented here. Is it not time that the British Government considered giving representation—albeit limited—in the House to those who are governed by this place despite the existence of a local House of Assembly? That would be consistent not only with the practices of the other principal democracies in relation to their comparable territories but with our human rights obligations and legislation.

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is a great champion of Gibraltar, and I am not surprised that he has raised that matter. He knows the Government's position on the Matthews judgment. We are bound by it, we will honour it and we are considering ways in which to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are enfranchised and can take part in European parliamentary elections.

Mr. John D. Taylor: When will Her Majesty's Government cease to contravene the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the people of Gibraltar, being in the European Union, should have votes in the European parliamentary elections?

Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman will know from my previous answer that we are bound by the decision of the ECHR and we are seeking ways to ensure that at the next opportunity, when there are elections to the European Parliament, there is enfranchisement under that judgment.

Burma (Human Rights)

Ms Helen Southworth: If he will exert pressure on the Burmese regime to respect the human rights of the Burmese people. [112874]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The whole House is appalled by the human rights violations and the lack of democracy in Burma. That includes killings, rape, torture, forced relocation, forced labour, political detentions and a lack of press freedoms. The Government take every opportunity to condemn those violations and to urge the regime to change the situation.

Ms Southworth: I thank my hon. Friend for taking that position. It is essential that we speak out on behalf of the Burmese people and in defence of human rights internationally. Will the Government use their partnership with the International Labour Organisation to take every opportunity to ensure that the Burmese regimes end forced labour?

Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Forced labour is one of the large number of human rights


violations. A 1998 ILO report, which highlighted its use, made clear recommendations for the regime to implement, but they have done absolutely nothing about that. However, we shall raise the matter at the March Governing Body of the ILO, which meets at the end of this week, and continue to put pressure on the regime over the use of direct forced labour.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the despicable catalogue of malpractices of the Burmese regime mirrored across the border in the People's Republic of China? Is it not the case that Burma at least does not threaten its neighbours as China threatens Taiwan and the exercise of Taiwanese democracy? Could not the Government be consistent in their application of an ethical foreign policy? Were they to be so, they might get some praise, and justifiably so.

Mr. Battle: The crucial difference is that the Burmese regime has locked up the democratically elected opposition and will not engage in conversation with them at all. Let me make it clear that at least the Chinese regime is willing to enter into dialogue and discuss human rights. We believe that we should have critical engagement, and have raised with China Tibet, democratisation, freedom of religion, torture, judicial independence, political detainees, Falun Gong and many other issues. Only recently, and as a result of our pressure, we achieved agreement that the all-party group on Tibet can now visit Tibet. The death penalty panel will discuss a strategy for the abolition of capital punishment and we have established a working group of experts on the ratification of the two United Nations human rights covenants. We are making progress to get China to change, but there is no way forward in Burma because the regime will not enter into critical engagement. I hope that the Opposition might at least acknowledge that there is a difference between the two situations.

Mr. Steve McCabe: On human rights, will my hon. Friend make representations on behalf of Mr. U Aung Khin, who was arrested in 1989 by the military authorities and sent to Insein prison? He appears to have disappeared without trace. I have written twice to the embassy asking for information, but it has declined to reply. We must not allow people to disappear without trace.

Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I will raise that matter with our embassy staff in Rangoon. We will work with our European Union partners for a resolution even tougher than last year's to be adopted at the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights meeting. Individual cases will represent some of the reasons for toughening our approach.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister tell the House what plans he has to ban investment in Burma by British companies?

Mr. Battle: In June 1997, the Government announced that they would not encourage UK companies to trade or invest in Burma. We suspended all financial support for trade missions to Burma and for trade promotions activities in Burma. British companies that inquire about trade with Burma are informed of the dire political

situation, its appalling human rights record and the poor state of the economy. Those are effective sanctions. We did all that as soon as we came into government. It is interesting that the Conservative Government did nothing to raise the issue or to take any action to try to change the situation in Burma.

Mongolia

Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on relations with Mongolia. [112875]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Our relations with Mongolia are particularly strong. The Mongolian Prime Minister visited the United Kingdom as a guest of Government from 27 February to 3 March. I understand that the hon. Gentleman visited Mongolia as part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union team. I understand also that it was a successful visit.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming the Mongolian delegation, which is visiting Parliament this week, following the successful visit by the Prime Minister last week?
Will the hon. Gentleman congratulate Mongolia on its determination to remain a beacon of pluralistic, democratic free marketeering—surrounded as it is by China on one side and by Russia on the other? In trying to preserve that beacon to the rest of that part of the world, will the Minister seek ways of encouraging mutual exchanges of students from Mongolia to the UK and, to a lesser extent, from the UK to Mongolia?

Mr. Battle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The delegation of 10 Mongolian MPs who are here now is most welcome. I hope perhaps to meet them tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has established an all-party group on UK-Mongolia relations. The sixth UK-Mongolia round table is scheduled for 8 to 10 May, when there will be discussions on commerce, the environment and education. We support Chevening scholarships to allow the exchange to take place. I think that the scholarships have been extended to a further two. The spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question is welcome.
We also support, through the EU TACIS programme with Mongolia, funds to help the country's move towards democracy and the opening up of its economy—I think some 30 million euros are now in that programme. We shall continue that positive support.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that every one of the Mongolian MPs who is visiting the UK has said that the prime objective is to learn from this country about democracy while they are here. Will he make sure that every support is given to that objective? Will he ensure also, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, that the UK does everything possible to ensure that the steps towards democracy are not hindered by the tragedy of the appalling weather conditions which have led to the death of so much livestock in Mongolia?

Mr. Battle: As I said, my hon. Friend has been active in establishing an all-party group. He led the delegation


to Mongolia, and I was grateful for his report-back. The answer is yes. We want to do all that we can to encourage understanding of democracy. The Mongolian MPs have a full programme and I understand that they are visiting the House tomorrow. They are meeting a range of people who have views on our system of democracy. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, to ascertain whether we can continue our efforts.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the Mongolian economy was much affected by the collapse of the Russian economy. The fact that Russia took troops home from Mongolia also took quite a lot out of the economy. Will the hon. Gentleman consider what we can do in this country to develop trade links to help Mongolia with its mining industry—I understand that it has considerable mineral deposits? Will he have conversations about how the economy, being improved, will back up the excellent democracy that Mongolia now has?

Mr. Battle: I remind the hon. Gentleman that a trade and economic agreement has been in place between Mongolia and the European Union since 1997. It has granted Mongolia most-favoured status for most of its products. The sixth UK-Mongolia round table—it was originally intended as a bi-annual event—which was postponed owing to Mongolia's internal political troubles in 1998–99, is now back up and running, and is scheduled for 8 to 10 May. It will cover themes of bilateral interest, especially commerce and trade, and I think it will be a productive meeting.

Iran

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Foreign Minister of Iran. [112876]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Dr. Kharrazi's visit in January was the first official visit to Britain by a Foreign Minister of Iran since the revolution 20 years ago. His visit enabled us to take forward our co-operation in areas of mutual concern such as the drugs trade. We are now contributing more than £1 million to assist Iran in combating the drugs trade. I impressed on Dr. Kharrazi the importance that we attach to Iran's commitment concerning Salman Rushdie, and our concern about a number of issues, including the continuing detention without trial of members of the Jewish community and others.
The subsequent elections in Iran produced an impressive majority for reform. The clear mandate of the people of Iran for modernisation justifies our strategy of critical dialogue with those in Iran who want to engage with the modern world.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that answer, but will my right hon. Friend think carefully before agreeing to visit Iran? Will he bear in mind that the Government of Iran continue to provide funding, weapons and training for terrorist groups opposed to the middle east peace process? Will he also consider the case of the 13 Jews in

Shiraz, who were arrested on apparently dubious charges of espionage? Are they not entitled to proper legal representation and to a fair trial that is open to international observers?

Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that I share his anxiety. I impressed on Dr. Kharrazi the importance that we attach to the middle east peace process and the severe damage that would be done not only to the peace process, but to relations between Iran and the rest of the world if anything were done to disrupt that peace process.
I pressed Dr. Kharrazi on the question of the remaining Jewish detainees. I am pleased that three were subsequently released on bail and that a trial date has now been set. We shall do everything possible to ensure that the trial is fair and open.

Sir David Madel: Did Iran's Foreign Minister say that his Government support the middle east peace process? If they do, should not the Government of Iran recognise the state of Israel?

Mr. Cook: I very much hope that the Government of Iran will eventually recognise the state of Israel; that would plainly be expected as Iran engages with the outside the world. However, I have to admit that, no, I did not get a statement of Iran's support for the peace process. I hope that the new mandate will ensure that the Government of Iran listen to those of us who urge restraint on them so that they do not disrupt the peace process.

Russia

Mr. Mike Gapes: What assessment he has made of recent political developments in Russia; and if he will make a statement. [112877]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited Moscow last month and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited St. Petersburg at the weekend. It is in the interests of Britain and the west that we engage with Russia at the highest level. My right hon. Friend and I both expressed Britain's deep concern about the level of military violence in Chechnya and the unnecessary human suffering that it has caused. Mr. Putin assured my right hon. Friend that Russia will permit access to Chechnya by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and by international bodies such as the Red Cross and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
It is important to our international interests that we are able to talk frankly to Russia about issues on which we disagree, such as Chechnya, and to strengthen our working relationship in respect of matters such as the Balkans and arms control, in which we need Russia's co-operation to succeed.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. In December, I was in Siberia in my role as an OSCE observer of the Duma elections. Russia is now developing into a vibrant democracy that covers 11 time zones. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to build good relations between the UK Parliament and the newly elected Russian Parliament, and to build on the


welcome visit by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the new Russian Duma, with six parties represented and 100 independent Members, will be far more effective than its predecessor? Does he share my hope that that Parliament will ratify the START 2 treaty as soon as possible?

Mr. Cook: I commend my hon. Friend on his dedication in going to Siberia in December. His work and that of many others enabled us to conclude that those elections were free and fair, and I am pleased that Russia has invited the OSCE to monitor the forthcoming presidential elections as well.
We welcome the changes within the Duma, and I agree entirely that more parliamentary exchanges will be helpful in our efforts to support it. In the past year, we have had 14 Russian parliamentary delegations to Britain, but there have been only four from Britain to Russia, so we are behind. The more we do to maintain such contacts, the more able we shall be to support arms control initiatives of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do not the Government feel some discomfort about breaking bread and sharing salt with Mr. Putin? He is the man who directed the campaign in which Chechnya was turned into a wasteland and innocent men, women and children were subjected to indiscriminate bombing and shelling. Before we offer advice on the reform of the Russian economy, should we not insist on a commitment from Mr. Putin that, both in word and in deed, he and his Government will respect the human rights of the people of Chechnya?

Mr. Cook: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the situation in Chechnya is deplorable and unacceptable. My right hon. Friend and I have engaged at the highest level in Russia to express that view. If we have criticisms to make, we should not resist making them in person to the people who can change the policy. I share the conclusion of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that Chechnya is a reason why Britain should be more, not less, involved in dialogue with Russia.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members support that position? We need active engagement in Russia for precisely the reasons that he has just outlined. We must get across to the present Russian Government that there can be no excuse for murder and torture of civilians, and no suggestion that there is a parallel between atrocities that have certainly been carried out by Chechen guerrillas and the actions of the Russia state. It is only by face-to-face confrontation that that message can be delivered to President-in-waiting Putin.

Mr. Cook: I agree very much with my hon. Friend's conclusion. I also share his view that the international community must have greater expectations of actions by a state than it has of actions by individuals. That is why I very much welcome the fact that Russia has indicated that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the OSCE can visit Chechnya. When we visited Russia, my right hon. Friend and I impressed on Mr. Putin the importance of transparency as the best safeguard against violations of human rights.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: There is something not quite right about the answers that the Foreign Secretary is giving us. We know that the Prime Minister prefers to enjoy a night at the opera in St. Petersburg rather than criticise Russian actions in Chechnya. Even the French press have today said that if the Prime Minister
wants to appear as a grand master of diplomacy he will have to wash his hands first.
The Foreign Secretary told us that he was frank with the Russians over Chechnya, but the Russian press, which is unspun, told another story. They said that the Foreign Secretary had been
mild in the highest degree … extremely favourable to Moscow
and that he was opposed to a toughening of the stance on Chechnya. Are not he and the Prime Minister making an art form of saying one thing and doing another? Will he be joining the Prime Minister at the basin?

Mr. Cook: If the hon. Lady really believes that the Moscow press is unspun, she should spend more time in Russia. I vigorously rebut the suggestion that I said one thing in private and another in public. I assure the House that what I said at the press conference in Moscow was what I said in the meeting.
It is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to criticise Government Front-Bench Members when the former Conservative spokesman under whom she served until only last month said that the sooner the Russians won the better. At least we have the courage to criticise the Russians, whereas the Conservatives egged them on.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in his meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Government, he is demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya, the engagement of a political process to bring about a solution there, and a guarantee that they will not engage in military activities in similar situations in Russia? It cannot be said that Russia is a vibrant democracy if it is bombarding part of its country using first world war methods against people who have a different view of the world from that held in Moscow.

Mr. Cook: I did not demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya, which, as my hon. Friend has just acknowledged, is part of the Russian Federation. The difficulties of the past two years may have arisen because all troops were withdrawn from that area. I concur with my hon. Friend on the other points that he made, and I assure him that I pressed for a political process. Our criticism of what has been done in Chechnya has all along been that military violence alone will not work, far less the excessive military violence that we have witnessed and that has caused the suffering to which my hon. Friend referred.

Kosovo

Mr. Mark Oaten: What recent discussions he has had with his colleagues in the United Nations regarding Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [112878]

Mr. David Chidgey: What recent discussions he has had with Foreign Ministers of other countries regarding Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [112880]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I most recently discussed Kosovo with Kofi Annan this morning. As I said after the meeting, we agreed that much progress had been made. A total of 800,000 refugees have returned to Kosovo; the first 350 local police drawn from all ethnic communities have completed training; and 90 per cent. of children have been able to attend school, something that they were denied for a decade by Belgrade.
Much remains to be done, particularly to tackle crime. Today I have announced that Britain will be responding to the appeal for international judges and prosecutors. Forty British lawyers have expressed an interest, and I hope that some of them will be able to take up their posts next month.
We take seriously the problems that remain in Kosovo, and we will take every responsible step to resolve them; but we should never forget that the problems would be much worse if we had not acted, and had left nearly 1 million refugees without homes during the winter.

Mr. Oaten: Does the Foreign Secretary share Madeleine Albright's fear that the European Community is not pulling its weight in delivering hard cash quickly to help to deal with the reconstruction problems in Kosovo?

Mr. Cook: I met Madeleine Albright last week and we discussed the state of Kosovo at some length. Let me point out that the European Union is funding the majority of UNMIK's administration budget, and that this country, of which the hon. Gentleman is a Member of Parliament, has funded the utilities, the prisons, the transformation of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the formation of the Kosovo protection force and the health service in Pristina. It has provided civil experts for UNMIK, is supporting de-mining and, over the coming year, will fund reconstruction of the health and social services and the registration of electors. We are investing considerable resources and we are working hard to make a success of what we are doing.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that last week we heard universal praise for the British contribution—for the professionalism of our soldiers, the contribution of our police and our civil administrators. There was, however, deep-seated concern about what was seen to be the proposed precipitate withdrawal of the team from the Department for International Development in Kosovo, which could, it was felt, lead to a great gap and to great disturbance. Will my right hon. Friend, in co-operation with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, undertake to review the contribution of that Department, to ensure that there is, at best, a more phased withdrawal?

Mr. Cook: I read with interest the reports from Pristina of the visit by my hon. Friend and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am pleased about the visit, and look forward to discussing it with them when I give evidence to the Committee on Thursday.
I think that there has been a misunderstanding in regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is true that a change is in progress in the Department for International Development in regard to who is responsible for the support work in Kosovo: it is shifting from the section that deals with humanitarian crises to the section that deals with reconstruction, because that is what is happening in Kosovo. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend that only last week the DFID confirmed that its budget in Kosovo this year would be £29 million, which will help reconstruction. The DFID will be fully involved in that.

Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of recent instances in which the activities of the international police force in Kosovo have been frustrated and obstructed by the French military and the French-controlled sector?

Mr. Cook: I read last week's report in The Times with interest. I made inquiries, and I am sure that the report was not correct in saying that British policemen had withdrawn from Mitrovica because of criticism. It is important for all members of KFOR, the French and everyone else, to co-operate fully with the police and to provide rapid access to scenes of crime.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the supply of additional judges to Kosovo. When we were there, we were made very much aware of the problem experienced by the police, who could arrest people but could then do nothing other than caution and release them.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a uniform policy across Kosovo of dismantling paramilitary forces, whether they are the KLA or the Serb paramilitary in Mitrovica, so that there can be a real return to civil government?

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree: it is important for Kosovo to be ruled and governed by the UN international mandate, rather than by men who happen to have managed to hold on to their weapons.
We have worked hard to try to reduce the volume of weapons in Kosovo. Eight thousand have been handed in voluntarily, and a further 4,000 have been confiscated as a result of KFOR's work. I agree that it is important for us to continue to press home that work, to ensure that Mitrovica does not remain an enclave under paramilitary control but is part of the UNMIK mandate throughout Kosovo, and to ensure that those expelled from their homes there have the opportunity to return.

Mr. David Wilshire: Following the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has just reported to the House, is he able to tell us the number of Kosovar Albanians forced out of Kosovo, as distinct from the number terrorised out of their homes prior to the start of the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia?

Mr. Cook: A total of 850,000 were forced out of their homes during that period of conflict. As to those who were forced from their homes in the period preceding the conflict, that, of course, will depend on the period that is taken, but, in October of the preceding year, when Holbrooke attended negotiations in Belgrade, 250,000 Kosovar Albanians had already been forced from their


homes. The idea that the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo began with the NATO bombing is totally in defiance of the history of that troubled province in the preceding year. It was the victim of repeated oppression.

Egypt

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Egypt concerning the treatment of Christians in Egypt. [112879]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cairo in January, he discussed inter-faith issues with members of the Government, including President Mubarak. We were concerned to hear reports of violence in early January in upper Egypt. The Egyptian authorities have pledged to carry out a thorough investigation.

Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that will be greatly welcomed by the Christian community in this country, but is he aware that the conservative estimates are that, last year, tens of thousands of Christians were killed for their faith? Is he further aware that in not only Egypt, but Indonesia and Pakistan, there are real concerns about the use of blasphemy laws to imprison and to torture Christian prisoners? Will he stand up time and again not only for pluralism, but for religious tolerance in all those countries?

Mr. Hain: Indeed I will. I am happy to acknowledge and pay tribute to my hon. Friend's close and dedicated interest in the matter. Britain has a proud record, having a multi-faith, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. We press that as a model for the rest of the world. We criticise, condemn and ask for an end to any attacks on Christians throughout the world, just as we do any attacks on members of other faiths.

Mr. Francis Maude: Was the treatment of the Coptic Christians discussed during the visits to Egypt last October and this February by Lord Levy? Is the Foreign Office told what he gets up to in his role as the Prime Minister's personal special envoy? While the Minister is at it, will he confirm that No. 10 has taken over responsibility for policy on the middle east, the United States, Russia and the European Union? Does he recall that, on one of the Foreign Secretary's earlier forays in the middle east, The Jerusalem Post asked:
with a diplomat like Cook by his side, how can Blair fail to loom as a giant statesman?
Is that the Foreign Secretary's main role: to make the Prime Minister look good?

Mr. Hain: On that performance, the right hon. Gentleman will be shadow Foreign Secretary for as short a time as his predecessor. Is he really suggesting that the Prime Minister should not take an interest in those international issues and support the Foreign Secretary's work?
Every fair-minded citizen will condemn outright the grubby and pathetic little campaign being waged by the Opposition in certain sections of the media against Lord Levy. He travels as the Prime Minister's envoy—on his behalf—representing interests, whether economic or others, in all parts of the middle east, from Morocco to Damascus. For example, when he spoke to the Syrian Government, he was instrumental in starting the negotiations between Syria and the Israelis. He should be applauded for that, not condemned. As he travels at his own expense and in his own time, the House should be grateful for his work and for the fact that Britain's interests are being represented through him, with the Prime Minister's agreement. He reports regularly to the Foreign Secretary and to Ministers such as me. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped the snivelling little campaign against Lord Levy.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Owen Paterson: Which items Her Majesty's Government have ruled out for an extension of qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [112881]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions, in the House and in our White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, that we shall consider the possible extension of qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. When it is in Britain's interests to support QMV, we shall do so. However, when key national interests are at stake—such as treaty changes, border controls, social security, taxation, own resources and defence—we shall insist on retaining unanimity.

Mr. Paterson: Will the Government refuse to sign any treaty that extends QMV to cover any sphere of British taxation?

Mr. Vaz: Yes.

Cameroon

Mr. David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on human rights in Cameroon. [112882]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Cameroon's recent human rights record has been poor, and Cameroon has made little progress towards fulfilling the commitments on human rights and governance made on joining the Commonwealth in 1995.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw his attention particularly to the case of members of the Southern Cameroon National Council who were arrested on 8-9 January, in the south-west province? Will he make specific representations to the Government of Cameroon on the fate of those SCNC members? Does he share the view


expressed in the report by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the routine use of torture in the central prison in Yaounde?

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue—in which he has taken a close interest, and which we raise with the Cameroon Government. The Cameroon Government's human rights record is very poor. There is widespread use of torture and detention without charge. A special Government unit, the Brigade Anti-Gang, is responsible for hundreds of extra-judicial killings in the north—where there should have been another trial of 76 north-west detainees, who have been detained without charge for two years, and of whom seven have died in detention. That is completely unacceptable, and the Cameroon Government must honour their obligations to their citizens and—as a Commonwealth member—to the Harare declaration.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that twice in two years Cameroon has come bottom of the Transparency International corruption perception index, how has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that no British financial assistance to Cameroon has been in any way misappropriated or contributed to the abuse of human rights?

Mr. Hain: We have satisfied ourselves to the greatest possible extent on the matter. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary on it, I should be very pleased to hear it. We have also taken a very tough line within the Commonwealth. At the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group in New York, which I attended, I pressed for a Commonwealth mission to go to Cameroon to make an assessment for itself. Cameroon entered into certain obligations when it joined the Commonwealth in 1995, but it is not honouring those obligations. Its continued membership of the councils of the Commonwealth is therefore in question.

Iraq

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will investigate the reasons for the recent resignations of (a) Hans von Sponeck and (b) Jutta Burghardt from UN agencies involved in Iraq. [112885]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): No. We are looking forward to the appointment of replacements who will channel their efforts into getting the best out of the United Nations humanitarian programme, as improved and enlarged by Security Council resolution 1284

Mr. Dalyell: On sanctions, who did Kofi Annan support—von Sponeck and Burghardt, his own officials, or the British or American Governments?

Mr. Hain: On sanctions, Kofi Annan supported the policy of the United Nations, which is articulated in the new Security Council resolution 1284—on which Britain led in securing its passage through the Security Council. The resolution provides for extra humanitarian relief by lifting the limits on oil for food. It also provides for the suspension of sanctions if Saddam Hussein agrees to an arms inspection regime going in.
I respect my hon. Friend's interest and close involvement in the Iraqi situation—he deserves credit for that—but I find it most difficult to comprehend what alternative is being proposed by the critics of sanctions. Would they, by lifting sanctions, allow Saddam Hussein the freedom to attack neighbours—as he did in the cases of Iran and Kuwait; to attack the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south; and to continue to attack his own citizens? He has a dreadful, tyrannical record. I have yet to hear a coherent alternative to sanctions, although we must all be concerned about the humanitarian suffering that the United Nations' new resolution is designed to deal with.

Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder

Mr. John Heppell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the assessment and detention of dangerous people with severe personality disorder.
As the title suggests, the Bill would allow the assessment of individuals with a severe personality disorder and their detention if they were felt to present a danger to the public. It specifies that they should be detained in establishments that provide a reasonable level of security for the public and services for the management and treatment of the disorder, although, unlike at present, it would not be a condition of any detention order that such treatment should be likely to alleviate or prevent deterioration in a person's condition. The Bill would allow for the periodic review of any detention and the release on licence of any individual who was no longer considered to present a danger to the public.
The Bill is not a panacea. It would not deal with everyone with a personality disorder. Some of them present a very low risk, and some no risk at all, to the general public. It would not deal with all paedophiles, although a small proportion of the people whom it would affect may be paedophiles. It would deal only with a small minority of people, but at present the risk that they pose to the public is not dealt with adequately and attempts to treat them are insufficient.
Every day, psychiatrists, psychologists and other clinical specialists, as well as police, probation officers and social workers, make life-and-death decisions about how much risk individuals present to the public and whether that risk has reduced enough to allow them into the community. Those who make the decisions are trying to protect the rights of the individual and the community. The Bill would not change that. Such decisions still have to be made. I recognise that the decisions are not always clear cut and that those who make them are in a no-win situation. Inevitably, sometimes they get it wrong. Often they are criticised for taking someone's liberty away when the risk is low. More often, they are criticised—usually with the benefit of hindsight—for releasing someone into the community who offends or reoffends. I do not want to join in that criticism. I recognise that for every case that goes tragically wrong in a blaze of media attention, there are hundreds in which we have got the balance right and the correct decision has been made. The aim of the Bill is to make it possible for a small number of people to be detained under a similar process when, after a proper assessment, they are shown to be a serious danger to the public.
I am proposing the legislation not because of a morbid interest in the subject or as a theoretical exercise, but because the problem exists and to ignore it and do nothing is not an option. Last year I was faced with the prospect of a special unit being set up in Nottingham prison in my constituency to house paedophiles. My immediate reaction was hostile, as was that of the local press and people in the area. The story was not an example of good communications by those involved. News about the unit leaked out before there had been any consultation, including with me.
Because people were not aware of all the facts, many invented their own. Dozens of rumours began to circulate. Because I did not know the truth, I could not squash those rumours. At one stage I was told that 30 paedophiles were coming to the area, some of whom would be resident, while others would visit on a daily basis. I was told that a door would be built in the prison and they would have keys so that they could go in and out as they wanted. It was all nonsense being peddled as truth, but I found it impossible to undo later much of the damage that was done at that time. Many local residents were whipped up into a fury. Without the full facts, that was understandable, but even when we had the facts many questions were left unanswered.
Initially, it was planned to house three dangerous offenders. In the end, only two bedsits were constructed. Two notorious paedophiles are now in occupancy away from the community. Initially I was not thrilled at the prospect. I met my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Ministers, civil servants and experts in dealing with such offenders. Only then did I realise that the alternative to having them housed inside the prison behind five locked doors, with closed-circuit television cameras and 24-hour surveillance, was for them to go out into the community. Admittedly, that may not have been in Nottingham, but it would be somewhere in the community where they would have much more opportunity to reoffend. I was told that those people would reoffend: not that it was possible or probable, but that it was certain. Everybody agreed on that—the police, the probation service, the psychiatrists and the psychologists.
Unfortunately, as the law stands, if someone is dangerous and a psychiatrist says that they can be treated, they can be held somewhere secure for that treatment. However, if someone is dangerous but a psychiatrist says that they cannot be treated, it is deemed that they cannot be held anywhere. That is not quite as daft as it sounds, and I appreciate why that is the case. Nevertheless, one does not need to be the Lord Chancellor to recognise that, in many circumstances, that is unacceptable.
The six months that the paedophiles have been in Nottingham prison have been a great success. I acknowledge that there has been no incident during that time, and that no child has been at risk. I am sure that children would have been at risk had those people been out in the community. However, that is not a long-term solution, which must involve new legislation and new resources. The Bill is an attempt to develop that long-term solution and to take the first tentative steps towards it.
This is a complex area of law that requires careful legislation. To remove someone's liberty without trial is not a course of action that anyone should contemplate without careful consideration. Unlike some sections of the media, I do not condemn the Government for not introducing legislation. The last thing we need is a knee-jerk reaction to the problem. It was right and proper that, before legislation was embarked upon, there should have been proper consultation with all the relevant agencies. I have used opinion B in the Government's consultation document as the basis of the Bill.
I see the Bill as a practical solution to a real, not theoretical, problem. I am grateful to the agencies which have contacted me and offered advice and constructive criticism: the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, MIND and Liberty have all given good advice on the pitfalls of legislation. I have said to


all of them that I see the difficulties and the problems. I recognise that it is important that we get the Bill right and, with careful deliberation, we can get it right. I am determined to press ahead unless someone can furnish me with a real alternative.
Many people were upset when I would not demonstrate against the Government putting two paedophiles in Nottingham prison. The reason for that was not pressure from the Home Secretary, or any other Minister. I was under no pressure—there are no votes in the House on these issues, and no whip is applied. There was not a party line for me to follow. The reason why I would not join others in condemning the proposals was simple: I could think of no real alternative that did not put children at risk. I still think that I was right, and I am in a similar position now in that I see no real alternative to the Bill.
Some of my constituents have offered solutions ranging from marooning those individuals on a desert island to drowning them. The most common solution put forward was the one that seems to be the standard solution proposed to almost every problem—I refer, of course, to chopping off their goolies. I apologise if that is unparliamentary language, Madam Speaker, but that is how it is often put to me. That is not a real option, and we can see that it is neither practical nor possible within the law—and, as has been said, it does not work.
Today, coincidentally, the Select Committee on Home Affairs has published its report on managing dangerous people with severe personality disorders. Some may not believe it, but that is a coincidence. If anyone believes that I have enough influence to persuade the Whips to give me a ten-minute rule Bill spot on the day that the Select Committee produces a report that proposes the same conclusions as my Bill, they must think that I have the same reputation as Machiavelli.
The Bill would provide a good option for dangerous people with severe personality disorders. It would offer them more than they are offered at present and would also offer protection to the public.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mr. Steve McCabe, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Ian Pearson, Ms Bridget Prentice, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. David Taylor, Mr. David Watts and Mr. Phil Woolas.

DANGEROUS PEOPLE WITH SEVERE PERSONALITY DISORDER

Mr. John Heppell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the assessment and detention of dangerous people with severe personality disorder: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 88].

Orders of the Day — Supplementary Vote on Account 2000–01

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words `(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Eric Forth: This matter caught my eye when it was first sneaked on to the Order Paper on Friday. When I read the motion, I began to muse on why the Government would wish to table something that contained the phrase
shall apply as if the words
for the consideration of the House, especially on a Friday afternoon. I began to wonder whether some skulduggery was involved.
I am delighted that the procedures of the House allow for a full and proper debate on the matter which, as I hope to illustrate, is rather more important than the Government believe. The provenance of the motion is, I believe—subject to any correction—Standing Order No. 54, which states:
Three days, other than Fridays, before 5th August, shall be allotted in each session for the consideration of estimates.
One of the most important elements of the relationship between the House of Commons and the Executive was always the consideration of the provision of Supply by the House of Commons to the Government. I submit that anything that relates to that should be the subject of a full debate. However, the motion appears to provide—I am, of course, open to correction when the Minister replies—for the matter to be debated in substance but only under the condition that there is no debate after 10 o'clock. That will not do. I suspect that the main business today, which includes several amendments and Third Reading, means that there is only a very slim chance that the substance of later motions will be discussed before 10 o'clock.
The motion that we are being asked to approve will probably allow later motions to slip through without proper debate. That cannot be acceptable. The helpful introductory note to the supplementary vote on account states:
The Vote on Account provides finance to allow existing services to continue during the early months of the coming financial year, pending Parliament's consideration of the main Supply Estimates.
In other words, the motion is a mechanism to allow government to function and to allow the continued spending of moneys before the House has a proper opportunity fully to consider the matters.
Rather impertinently, it goes on:
The amounts in the Vote on Account are normally a standard 45 per cent. of the amounts already voted for the corresponding services in the current year.
That is all very cosy. There is not much opportunity for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to the substance of what it is being asked to agree. The motion was slipped in on Friday, and again late last night. Thanks to the eternal vigilance of an hon. Member whom I am too modest to name, it is now—rightly—the subject of debate on the Floor of the House. However, the motion


states that there can be no debate after 10 o'clock, and that makes me suspect that the Government believe that the matter will not be properly considered.

Mr. John Bercow: A moment ago my right hon. Friend demanded a full debate on this matter, but has he noticed that the Leader of the House is not present, even though the motion is in her name? Her deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, is here, however. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government must ensure that the debate continues for as long as is needed for the right hon. Lady to hop, skip and jump to the Chamber?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is normally a charitable man, but he is probably being a bit hard on the Government. I am a fair man, and must concede that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the vote on account motion has been tabled, has been courteous enough to attend. I am confident that he will give us a full reply to this debate. Perhaps the Leader of the House's deputy will tell us about the procedural matter, and then the Financial Secretary will tell us something about the substance of the motion.
The final page of the document from which I have quoted leaves me rather confused. The table listing the allocation to votes contains two salient figures. The first is the sum of £7 million, the existing provision voted on account. The second figure is the real substance of the matter—a sum of £1,000 that is to be added to the estimates.
Normally, I am prepared to go a long way to accept matters at their face value, but that second figure tries me to the limit. The Government have tabled a separate motion, under the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 54 and 55, and it has appeared in the Order Paper on three successive days. When passed, it will secure for the Government additional funding of £1,000. That seems rather odd.
It is the small size of the Government's request that leads me to think that we should be a given a full explanation. I do not believe that the Treasury is that strapped for cash, as we are led to believe that it is rather flush right now. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will expatiate on the Government's war chest before he explains why he needs the House to vote him an extra £1,000.
I raise these questions because I do not know the answer to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he seeks to detain the House over a sum of £1,000. The footnote to the final table in the document states that the sum includes provision
for expenditure on the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate which is being set up under the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate Bill which received Third Reading in the House of Lords on 3 February 2000.
That is a little teasing. If the Government can set up such an inspectorate for £1,000 I shall be more impressed than I usually am at their efficiency. However, if the Minister assures me that that is what he is going to do, I shall be the first to vote for the proposal, to demonstrate the gratitude of the taxpayers of Bromley and Chislehurst. I will take a bit of persuading, however, because something tells me that that is not necessarily the whole story.
I would like to think that we could have debated the substance later in the day. However, as we will probably not be able to vote on it later in the day—because one

way or another, I suspect that we will get to 10 o'clock without that opportunity arising—we need to know why the Government are trying to sneak through this measure, whatever the amount may be, without being sufficiently confident of their case to give it a proper opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House. Those are the questions that I want to ask today.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I would like to refine what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has just said. The House is indebted to him for his eagle-eyed attention to the business. At least four questions need to be specifically addressed.
First, footnote a. to the estimates tells us what is really happening. We are told that the sum shown includes provision for expenditure on the crown prosecution inspectorate. When the word "includes" appears, we can be quite sure that other matters may be included as well. Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to tell us whether any other items of expenditure fall outside that provided for under the crown prosecution inspectorate? Otherwise, the word "includes" would be otiose.
My second point is about substance. We are being asked to vote £1,000 on account of the crown prosecution inspectorate. I am the first to believe that the inspectorate is a very worthy organisation, but we are entitled to know a little more about it. How many officials are we sanctioning? What will be its annual cost? How many officials have so far been recruited? When does the expenditure start? If we are being asked to vote money, we have a right to answers to those questions.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend does not assume or expect that the expenditure has already started, since we have not yet approved it. Presumably, he is anticipating it as future expenditure.

Mr. Hogg: I never make concessions of that kind in favour of the Government. My right hon. Friend raises a very fair point, and I hope that Ministers will address it. We need to know how many staff there will be, when they will be recruited, and when the money will start to be spent.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a matter of legitimate concern to the House if, in anticipation of the likely approval of the sum of money, applications for staff had already been received, or advertisements in pursuit of staff had been made by the inspectorate? If the House decided not to approve the sum in question, there would be a number of disappointed and angry people with reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government.

Mr. Hogg: Interestingly, that point leads to my next question—namely, the relationship between a money resolution and the supplementary estimates. Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to tell us the extent to which the matter has already been covered by a money resolution and, for the purposes of the supplementary estimates before us, the exact relationship between the money resolution, for which he was no doubt responsible, and the supplementary estimates?

Mr. Michael Fallon: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend touched on the kernel of


the matter? The expenditure in question relates not to an Act but to a Bill, and it would probably be better approved during the course of proceedings on the Bill. Instead, the House is being asked to authorise expenditure to a body that is not yet law.

Mr. Hogg: There is a great deal of force in what my hon. Friend says. I have not checked Hansard—that is a failing on my part—but the Ministers who have the conduct of the Bill should have told us of its spending implications when they were taking the matter through the House. They may have done so. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us what he told the House when the Bill was debated on Second Reading.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that much of what has already been said in this brief debate would have been rendered otiose if, at the beginning of it, the Minister had had the courtesy to explain to the House why he wanted the matter to be approved? Instead, he sits in his place—albeit most courteously and patiently—while we speculate on the matter with no information from him.

Mr. Hogg: I shall not accuse the Minister of discourtesy; I, too, have been a Minister, so I know what he was hoping. He hoped that my right hon. Friend would not hop to his feet—not an unworthy hope and one that I understand.

Mr. Bercow: It was unrealistic.

Mr. Hogg: Indeed—but it was not unworthy. The Minister hoped that the matter would go through on the nod. However, happily from the point of view of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst intervened to ask for a full explanation.
We are being asked to approve £1,000. Does it include the cost of printing the motion, or is that an additional cost? In order that the matter may be wholly transparent, what is the cost of printing the document?

Mr. William Ross: I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) initiated a debate on the motion, because it proposes certain changes to departmental expenditure in the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland appropriation order will soon come before the House, but the estimates before us deal with expenditure that falls outwith that order. This debate seems to offer us our only opportunity to consider that increased expenditure. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is impossible—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to be clear that we are dealing with a procedural motion—not the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. Ross: The procedure of the House is that the estimates deal with expenditures in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members have already referred to expenditure elsewhere. I note that the document refers to expenditure in respect of the Saville inquiry—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat repetitious. I have warned him. He is considering the wrong estimates.

Mr. Ross: I procured the document before me from the Vote Office; it covers the Northern Ireland Office estimates. They do not fall within the appropriation order for Northern Ireland; they are completely different. We rarely debate them in the House—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that this is a procedural motion; it relates only to one narrow point. If the hon. Gentleman approaches the Chair, I will give him the documents that he may need. In the meantime, perhaps another Member would like to speak.

Mr. David Wilshire: I shall try to return to the document that I was given by the Vote Office—I hope it is the same one that you have, Madam Speaker—so that we can have a meaningful dialogue.
One of the greatest responsibilities on the shoulders of all Members of Parliament, and one of our least-used powers, is the scrutiny and control of expenditure. I have been a Member of the House for 13 years, yet I am still amazed at how often we nod through £1 billion here or £1 billion there. I make no apology for talking about this £1,000; with hindsight, I wish that I had spent more time talking about the billions of pounds.
The process of wresting control of expenditure from the Executive has been central to the development of the parliamentary democracy that we now enjoy. If we allow that scrutiny and control to wither completely, we should not be surprised if our parliamentary democracy withered and died as well. It is in that spirit that I put my questions about the document to the Minister.
My first question arises from paragraph 2 of the document's introduction. It states:
The main Supply Estimates for 2000–01 will be presented in April 2000.
However, a request has been made under that provision before the main estimates appear before us in April. We are entitled to assume therefore that it is a matter of some urgency. However, the Financial Secretary did not have the courtesy to explain to the House what that urgency is. Before we vote on the matter, I hope that he will explain why this £1,000 is so urgent and why it cannot be dealt with at the same time that the House deals with the estimates involving billions of pounds. I am sure that he will understand why I feel apprehensive. Something is going on that we should know about. Will he either tell us what is going on, or put my mind at rest by offering another explanation? We have yet to hear any explanation whatever.
My second concern arises from paragraph 4 of the document's introduction, which says:
The Vote on Account may reflect a higher or lower amount
than the usual 45 per cent. There is a norm of 45 per cent. for votes on account, but it does not apply to this case. It is an exception and, because it is an exception, there is yet another imperative on the Government to tell us what is so exceptional about the procedure. That would put our suspicious minds at rest. We would then understand the


Government's integrity and honesty, if not their openness, when it comes to expenditure. Why does this item not involve the standard amount? We need an explanation.
My third concern relates to sub-paragraph c of paragraph 4. This vote on account is for the sum of £1,000 and sub-paragraph c states that
if the Supply Estimate is for a token sum of £1,000 for self-financing services, no Vote on Account provision is sought but the continuation of the services in the new financial year is noted.
From that, we are entitled to conclude that this item is not a self-financing exercise because the House's authority, through a vote on account, is being sought. All my concerns about the role of Parliament in our parliamentary democracy are correct. The estimate is not just a matter of accounting to put things right while money is brought in to pay for something that the Government are doing; it is real expenditure of taxpayers' money. However, we have not been told what it is for. We can look through the document for something that relates to the use of taxpayers' money, but we shall not find it. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us.
The fourth concern arises out of paragraph 5 of the introduction. It refers to a "token Supplementary Vote", and the word "token" is the one that worries me. The Government are using smoke and mirrors. They want us to agree to giving them £1,000 so that they can do what they like. It is not the sum that the Government want, but just a token. Why have they not had the goodness and decency to tell the House what they are up to and what they really want? Instead, they have shuffled forward with a piece of paper saying, "Give us £1,000." They will then continue to do what they wanted to do in the first place. That is no way to treat Parliament and it is no way for an Executive to operate in a democracy; it is an abuse of democracy.

Mr. William Ross: I must confess that I am always confused by the way in which the estimates are written. However, it seems that the class V estimate for the Lord Chancellor's Department is £1,625,000,000, so £1,000 will not keep the Department running for very long.

Mr. Wilshire: That is exactly my point. It is a token sum, and we need to know the real figure.
You will be relieved to hear, Madam Speaker, that I turn now to my fifth and final point, which also arises from paragraph 5. It says:
Token additional provision is being sought to draw to the attention of Parliament the intention to use Vote on Account money for the new service specified in the footnote.
The Government say that the procedure is being used to draw their intention to the attention of the House, but it was not used to draw anything to our attention; it was used twice to get something through on the nod when nobody was looking, in the hope that we would not notice it. Yet here we have a so-called explanation of a wish to draw something to the attention of the House. I offer no apologies to the House for ensuring that we have a proper debate. That is what the Government want, as the document says.

Mr. Hogg: One way forward for the future might be for the Government to annex to these orders an explanatory memorandum, so we would have the answer in brief form

before the debate. We might then know whether we collectively wanted to address the matter on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. It is essential that we do all in our power to ensure that no Executive—Labour or Conservative—slip money, whether it is £1,000 or £1 billion, past the House, on the nod, late at night. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is to be commended for his vigilance. I feel guilty for not being as vigilant as he is.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to my hon. Friend extremely carefully. Is not he highlighting to the House, badly attended as it is for this debate, the inadequate way in which it deals with votes on Supply and estimates? Will he take note of the increasing concern expressed not only by the Procedure Committee, which I chair, but the Public Accounts Committee and, what is more, the influential Liaison Committee?

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wish him well in his endeavours to ensure that this does not happen again. It is absolutely proper that we debate these issues, and it is remiss of the Government to try to slip them through on the nod and to have offered no details at the start of the debate. The document provides no details; it refers simply to a Bill and a figure, which it says is a token.
I suggest that the Government read their history books and note that quite a few members of past Executives have ended up in clink, and one or two have lost their heads trying to defy Parliament on taxation.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I join my colleagues in asking questions about the supplementary vote. The Financial Secretary is perfectly entitled to put the request for a supplementary vote before the House, but we are equally entitled to ask questions about it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for ensuring that we are doing so.
As I said earlier, it is unfortunate that the new service that is singled out as the justification for the supplementary vote is being set up by a Bill, rather than an Act that has already been passed. The House may well change the nature of the expenditure involved in the Bill before it becomes an Act. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill has only just arrived in the House, and we have not yet properly debated it or seen the various money resolutions that the Financial Secretary may want to attach to it.
My right hon. Friend may well want to note that paragraph 5 of the Treasury document refers to expenditure for a new service, but the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill says:
There is no increase in expenditure as a direct result of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary has come to the House, asking for additional resources, when the explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that it does not involve an increase in expenditure. I can tell the House that the running costs for the inspectorate are some £2.5 million in the next financial year. Of course, the inspectorate exists already. The purpose of the Bill is to put it on a statutory basis.
The explanatory notes are more than helpful. They point out that although there is an increase in expenditure in the next year, that is largely the result of the need for the inspectorate to find accommodation separate from the Crown Prosecution Service.
I repeat: there is no increase in expenditure as a direct result of the Bill. Therefore, I am mystified as to how the Financial Secretary can pick out this item of expenditure and justify it to the House as being needed
for the new service specified in the footnote to the table.
That footnote specifically states:
Includes provision for expenditure on the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate which is being set up under the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate Bill which received Third Reading in the House of Lords.
Precisely because of the confusion about whether new money is required for the inspectorate to be put on a statutory basis, it would have been better to wait until the Bill had been considered by the House. We could have decided whether or not to assent to the money resolution that the Financial Secretary may or may not table to the Bill. However, he has not done that, so all that we can rely on is the proceedings in another place. I suggest that the Financial Secretary should be asked to take the document away and try again.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am grateful to Opposition Members for providing me with the opportunity to explain the significance of the supplementary vote on account.
I remind the House that the purpose of the vote on account is to provide finance to allow existing services to continue during the early months of the coming financial year, pending the consideration by Parliament of the Supply estimates, which take effect from mid-July. Where it is intended that new services currently before Parliament, like the one mentioned in this brief debate, will be funded between 1 April and the passing of the Appropriation Act, that is drawn to Parliament's attention by means of a footnote. That is the standard procedure for dealing with such matters.
Our Standing Order No. 55(2)(a) covers votes on account and specifies that questions arising from such votes on account should be tabled not later than 6 February. The documentation for the vote on account 2000–01 was submitted last November, and both Houses agreed it on 16 December.
Because the most appropriate vote for the crown prosecution service inspectorate had not been confirmed by last November, the vote on account 2000–01 did not include a footnote referring to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill. I am pleased to tell the House that parliamentary progress on that Bill has been faster than anticipated at that time. A supplementary vote on account for spending in the period from the start of the new financial year until mid-July will make it possible to implement Parliament's decision in respect of the Bill when Royal Assent is achieved.
The motion amends—

Mr. Fallon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: I shall give way just once, then I must make progress.

Mr. Fallon: The Minister is referring to progress on a particular Bill. Will he confirm that the House has not yet started its consideration of that Bill?

Mr. Timms: Indeed, but the Bill has reached Third Reading in the House of Lords and is on its way to be considered here. It is normal for initial spending on such measures to be authorised in this way.
The motion amends Standing Order No. 55—

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: No, I cannot give way again.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way? He is not short of time.

Mr. Timms: No, I will not give way again.
The motion amends Standing Order No. 55 for today, so that we can take the necessary vote on account resolution with the spring estimates to be considered tonight, rather than with the winter supplementary estimates with which the earlier vote on account was taken. That is the standard procedure to meet the requirements of the House when it has to take estimates at times different from those normally allowed for in Standing Orders. For example, that procedure was adopted in January 1992 when the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was a Minister at the Foreign Office, and a supplementary vote on account was required to provide cover for a late new estimate for the European Communities budget. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls that. The procedure is perfectly standard.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Financial Secretary give way?

Mr. Timms: I shall not give way because I do not want to detain the House longer than necessary.
The procedure is intended to draw Parliament's attention to the fact that the vote on account will be used to fund an important new service as soon as Royal Assent is given to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill.
Opposition Members also referred to the £1,000 token votes. Again, that is standard procedure; there are 13 in the spring supplementary estimate. They are a device for drawing the House's attention to the intention to incur spending on a new service.
I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 16.

Division No. 104]
[4.16 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Crausby, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allan, Richard
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Darvill, Keith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ashton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davidson, Ian


Austin, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Baker, Norman
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ballard, Jackie
Dawson, Hilton


Barron, Kevin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beard, Nigel
Dobbin, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Doran, Frank


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Drew, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benton, Joe
Edwards, Huw


Berry, Roger
Efford, Clive


Best, Harold
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Betts, Clive
Ennis, Jeff


Blackman, Liz
Etherington, Bill


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fearn, Ronnie


Blizzard, Bob
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Borrow, David
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Flint, Caroline


Brake, Tom
Flynn, Paul


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)


Breed, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
Gapes, Mike


Buck, Ms Karen
Gardiner, Barry


Burden, Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burnett, John
Gerrard, Neil


Burstow, Paul
Gibson, Dr Ian


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Goggins, Paul



Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Gunnell, John


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hesford, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Hill, Keith


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cotter, Brian
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cranston, Ross
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey





Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morley, Elliot


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hoyle, Lindsay



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Illsley, Eric
Oaten, Mark


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jamieson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Jenkins, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pollard, Kerry


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce



Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Nick


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rendel, David


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Laxton, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Lepper, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted


Levitt, Tom
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruane, Chris


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Livsey, Richard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Sanders, Adrian


Love, Andrew
Sarwar, Mohammad


McAvoy, Thomas
Savidge, Malcolm


McCabe, Steve
Sawford, Phil


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McFall, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


McIsaac, Shona
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Southworth, Ms Helen


Maxton, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Merron, Gillian
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moore, Michael
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stringer, Graham






Stunell, Andrew
Tynan, Bill


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Watts, David



Webb, Steve


Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
White, Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)




Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Timms, Stephen
Wilson, Brian


Tipping Paddy
Winnick, David


Todd,Mark
Wood, Mike


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Woolas, Phil


Touhig, Don
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Chope, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Townend, John


Fallen, Michael
Wardle, Charles


Gill, Christopher
Wilkinson, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey




Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Eric Forth and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. David Wilshire.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words `(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

As amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Clause 63

SPECIAL PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND PARTIES

Mr. Robert Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 40, line 15, leave out clause 63.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 169, in page 40, line 18, after "party", insert—
`with its Headquarters and/or registered office in Northern Ireland.'.
Amendment No. 170, in page 40, line 19, leave out—
`such period as is specified'
and insert—
'a period of one year'.
Amendment No. 171, in page 40, line 23, leave out—
`such period as is specified'
and insert—
'a period of one year'.
Amendment No. 166, in page 40, line 25, at end add—
'(1 A) The Secretary of State may by order further extend the periods laid down under subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b)(ii) above, but no further period of extension shall be for more than one year and there may be no more than two such further extensions.'.
Amendment No. 167, in page 40, line 26, at end add
'a party which has its headquarters, UK headquarters or registered office in Northern Ireland which is.'.
Amendment No. 168, in page 40, line 27, leave out "one" and insert "six".
Amendment No. 172, in page 40, line 29, leave out "one" and insert "four".
Amendment No. 173, in page 40, line 30, after "Commons" insert—
`who have taken the oath or made the affirmation and are'.
Amendment No. 164, in page 40, line 33, at end add—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) (b) above unless the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) a draft of the order has been submitted to the Electoral Commission; and
(b) the Commission has stated that, in its opinion, the contents of the draft order are compatible with the effective enforcement in individual cases of the provisions of section 54 relating to evasion of restrictions on donations.'.

Amendment No. 174, in clause 144, page 92, line 13, at end add—`(aa) section 63 (1A)'.

Mr. Walter: Many hours have been spent in the House discussing the situation in Northern Ireland. The clause that we seek to delete gives the Secretary of State power to make special provision for Northern Ireland parties.


I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House on the necessity of the peace process. I think also that there is agreement that we wish to see a normal economic and political climate return to Northern Ireland. While not wishing to labour another debate on Northern Ireland and the current state of the peace process, we are debating a clause that would exacerbate the current failure of the peace process. That is, the failure to deliver a return to democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. If clause 63 remains part of the Bill, that failure will be compounded.
It is an affront to the people of Northern Ireland to make special provision for supporters of and sympathisers with terrorism. It is an affront to the political parties of Northern Ireland represented in the House of Commons—those Members who have taken the Oath and taken their seat—to allow others, the friends of terror, special privileges denied to parties in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the affront is even greater than he describes? The clause confers a power to make orders that are subject to the negative procedure, not the affirmative procedure. In consequence, the Secretary of State can exercise his power to extend the range of permitted donors without obtaining an affirmative vote in the House.

Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: clause 63, like other clauses, gives the Secretary of State such powers. We shall discuss that issue later.
The basic premise behind the amendment is that there should not be special provisions for Northern Ireland. Lord Neill suggested that provisions should exist, because there were special circumstances in Northern Ireland. I do not entirely accept all his arguments in that respect. The Neill report reached us in October 1998, and the game has moved on since then. The report reached us after the signing of the Good Friday agreement, but before the election and creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition, the report reached us before Sinn Fein—to name but one Northern Ireland political party—became an effective part of the political process. The rest, as they say, is history.
If Great Britain is to be subject to the requirements for financial propriety and transparency enshrined in the Bill, it is unacceptable that a part of the United Kingdom with the most vivid history of political corruption should be excluded from the provisions of the Neill report. I do not want to go over Northern Ireland's political history, but I emphasise that it would be wrong effectively to turn a blind eye to practices that have been declared unacceptable in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I hope that, as a result of the events of the past year, there will be an end to the violence used to further political causes in Northern Ireland. Like other hon. Members, I hope and believe that the arms that have been used by terrorists will be handed in and decommissioned. I wonder when that will happen, although that is a subject to be debated another time. Over the years, intimidation has been used to a great extent in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we must not, by allowing the clause to remain part of the Bill, create an environment in which it is perpetuated.

Mr. John Bercow: Among other attributes, my hon. Friend has a fertile imagination.

Why should the clause provide for a possible extension of the categories of permissible donors, given that six such categories are already provided for in clause 48(2)?

Mr. Walter: The Committee considered the issue of why, having introduced a regime in Great Britain in which foreign donors were precluded from funding our political parties, and having laid down specific categories of permissible donors, we should allow the Secretary of State to announce exclusions in respect of political parties whose financial and democratic propriety some of us might call into question.

Mr. Hogg: The effect of the proposal in clause 63(1)(b), if it stands as it is, is that a foreign donor could be brought within the class of those deemed to be permissible donors. Not only that, but a foreign donor could be excluded by the Secretary of State from the requirement to give specified information.

Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We discussed in Committee the possibility of permitting donors from the Irish Republic to make donations to political parties not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I made it clear in Committee that we were not prepared to tolerate a situation in which donors in the United States or other foreign countries could continue to fund the activities of Northern Ireland political parties, as they have done in the past, and thus get away with funding the forces of terror, of which we have seen the effects in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: If permissible sources were to include citizens of the Irish Republic, the Neill committee makes it clear in paragraph 5.41 of its report that
there would exist the possibility of overseas donations reaching the Republic,
and thereby Northern Ireland. This clause would be a facilitator for Noraid and all its works.

Mr. Walter: Not only that, but the clause specifically does not mention the Republic of Ireland. It allows exemptions to be made regarding the list of permissible donors that would enable Noraid and any other organisation, whether in the United States or elsewhere, to fund Northern Ireland political parties. It is within the Secretary of State's power to specify which political parties he wishes to exempt from the rule. As the Bill is drafted, he could specify just one party to be exempted, so he might feel it politically expedient to specify a party that has traditionally received most of its funding from the United States, and perpetuate a situation that the rest of us in the House would regard as completely unacceptable.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for giving way so generously. Is there not another risk? I am not accusing the Government of having this in mind, but we must face the consequences. Any Government at some time in the future could use these exempting powers to assist the funding of a


particular party with which that Government—not this one—had friendly relations. The exempting powers can be used in a partisan manner.

Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. These powers can be used not only for political expediency, but in a partisan way by a political party that wants to aid and abet its friends in the north of Ireland.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has just raised a serious point. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on the House to have serious regard to the possibility not only of a future abuse occurring under a future Secretary of State, but of an abuse by the present incumbent of the office, who, for all his distinctive talents, is a distinctly manipulative specimen?

Mr. Walter: We can only presume from the fact that the Government have included clause 63 that, when drafting the Bill, they speculated about the possibility that they would want to use it and to make an exemption for a particular Northern Ireland party—or, possibly, a number of Northern Ireland parties—allowing that party, or those parties, to receive funds from foreign sources that are denied to the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walter: I will give way for the last time to the Minister.

Mr. O'Brien: In fact, the hon. Gentleman has not given way before this occasion, but I am grateful to him for doing so.
Our amendment No. 24 will ensure that any order under clause 63 applies to all Northern Ireland parties. It will not be possible to specify particular parties.

Mr. Hogg: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. O'Brien: We tabled the amendment in response to concerns expressed in Committee.
I hope that what I have said reassures the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that such mendacious thoughts are not in our minds.

Mr. Walter: I am cognisant of the amendment, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, the provision is not yet in the Bill. Moreover, I fear that if the clause were altered to refer to "each" rather than "a" Northern Ireland party, as the amendment suggests, another can of worms would be opened in connection with political parties engaging in activities not only in Northern Ireland but in other parts of the United Kingdom. We shall, in the context of other parts of the Bill, discuss problems that could arise in regard to parties that might have sister organisations in different parts of the United Kingdom. I think that deleting clause 63, as amendment No. 152 suggests, is the simplest and most straightforward way of dealing with the matter.
Let me return to the Neill report, and the White Paper that constitutes the Government's response to it. I want—without prejudging anything that Northern Ireland Members may say later—to quote the Unionist parties' response to the White Paper. They adopted a more or less unanimous view:
It is not acceptable to argue that Northern Ireland must be treated differently because Sinn Fein are organised on an all-island basis. The same law should apply to all parties which stand for election in the United Kingdom. This should not be dismissed as a political point. The fact that it is difficult to police donations to the Republican Movement is no excuse for not trying.
It is donations to the republican movement with which we are concerned here, and cutting off the flow of funds to that movement should be at the forefront of our minds when we consider clause 63.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Unionist parties' view that there is no excuse for not trying to police political donations, as we shall do in the rest of the United Kingdom—although it will be difficult, partly because some donations to Northern Ireland parties, and to nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, come from foreign sources. If contributions from the Scottish and Welsh diasporas are from impermissible sources, they will be rejected by the treasurers of those parties. There is no reason why the treasurer of a Northern Ireland party should not similarly reject donations from people who are not permissible donors within the meaning of the Bill. If Northern Ireland is to be regarded, as we believe it should be, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, it should be subject to the rules that apply to the rest of the UK, including those relating to donations to political parties.

We do not want the Secretary of State to have the power to make orders that relate only to Northern Ireland, to one Northern Ireland party, to several Northern Ireland parties, or to all the Northern Ireland parties. It might have been politically expedient for the Government to suggest that Sinn Fein—the party that immediately comes to mind—should be exempt from various provisions or regulations that apply to other parties: but it should not. We cannot have one rule for one party, or group of parties, because it is politically expedient, and another rule for other parties. The basic premise behind the amendment is that the same rules must apply to all parties in Northern Ireland as apply to all parties in the rest of the UK.

Mr. Martin Linton: I look forward to hearing what Ministers can report about the discussions that have been going on with parties in Northern Ireland. As they know, my amendment, No. 164, is concerned not so much with the Republic of Ireland as with the possibility that the clause could be used to enable donations from other countries to find their way to this country.
My concern lies not so much with clause 63 as with clause 54, which makes it an offence to give false information; indeed, it is punishable by a year in jail. However, it is only an offence for a UK citizen. Even if it is committed by a UK citizen, it can be investigated only if it is committed in this country.
A London banker who gives, shall we say, £5 million to a Euro-federalist party could be investigated under clause 54 to see whether the money had really come


from him, but a Dublin banker who gives £5 million to Sinn Fein, or, indeed, to the Ulster Unionist Council would not be breaking an Irish law and would not be subject to British law. Because, presumably, those offences would not be covered by Interpol, people will not be extraditable for party funding fraud.
I come back to the simple proposition: we can ban foreign funding, one of the fundamental purposes of the Bill, only from people who are subject to British law. As it stands, the Bill creates a new type of permissible donor, who is beyond its reach because he or she is an Irish citizen living in the Republic of Ireland. That opens the way to what has been described as re-routing, where money can go from, for example, an American citizen to an Irish citizen, from an Irish citizen to a Northern Ireland political party and, indeed, from a Northern Ireland political party to a British political party. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can prevail on the Taoiseach to introduce a Bill as part of the peace process banning Irish citizens from acting as conduits for donors to UK parties.
I understand that the talks with the Northern Ireland parties may touch on those possibilities, but there has to be some fire-break—I believe that discussions have taken place on the matter—between Belfast and London parties, so that money cannot pass between them. I look forward to hearing how those particular problems can be addressed.
What if the same party qualifies as both a Northern Ireland party and a British party? Conservative Members have not mentioned that possible self-interest in the clause. In recent years, the only party in the House that comes remotely close to being simultaneously a British and a Northern Ireland party has been the Conservative party.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: In view of our amendment No. 152, I fail entirely to see where in the clause self-interest lies for Conservative Members. We wish funding of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland to be subject to exactly the same stringencies as those faced by the Conservative party anywhere else. Nevertheless, I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's views on the matter. It does not seem to me right in principle that—should we choose to do so, and if it is done legitimately and in accordance with the rules that the hon. Gentleman himself wants to be implemented—money should not pass between the Conservative party in Northern Ireland and the Conservative party in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Linton: I do not suggest that Conservative Members have a self-interest in amendment No. 152, but only that their interest as a party could be affected by the Bill's current provisions. Like Conservative Members, I am trying to ensure that, in creating special exemptions for citizens of the Republic of Ireland—whatever they may think of that—we do not inadvertently affect the efficacy of the rules against overseas funding and of the enforcement of those rules as provided for in the Bill. If a Northern Ireland party gives money to a person who subsequently gives it to a British political party, it might not be in breach of the legislation.
I hope that we shall eventually hear the outcome of the talks. My simple principle is that, in the Bill, a permissible source must be an investigatable source. Regrettably,

therefore, all permissible donors would have to be residents of the United Kingdom, unless there is some way in which residents of the Republic also could be investigated.
The Neill committee applied that principle to Irish donors, and said that Irish donors should not only be registered to vote in Ireland, but resident in Ireland. The committee's intention, although it is not specifically reiterated in the Bill, was to limit the exemption to residents—not only citizens—of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Hogg: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, for which I have much sympathy. Does he accept—reverting to the Disqualifications Bill, which the House debated some time ago; I think that he may have spoken in that debate—that one cannot both argue the position that he is advancing now and support the Government's position on the Disqualifications Bill? I therefore hope that he will give consideration to his position on the latter matter.

Mr. Linton: I neither spoke—to the best of my recollection—in the debate on the Disqualifications Bill, nor understand where the alleged contradiction lies.

Mr. Hogg: The Bill proposes excluding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have the debate conducted from a sedentary position.

Mr. Hogg: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's apology.

Mr. Linton: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will enlighten me in due course.
The Neill committee's concern was to allow residents and citizens of the Republic of Ireland to contribute to Irish parties. I well understand the argument for that, as an integral part of the peace process is the principle that all people in Ireland should be able to participate in the political process in all parts of Ireland. It is an unfortunate truth that, to accomplish that, we may undermine the Bill's efficacy.
I appreciate the difficulties involved in the matter, and I do not have a solution. I tabled amendment No. 164 simply to ensure that the warning is heard loud and clear. For almost 50 years, we have had an election law that has been rendered ineffective by a very simple loophole. A finding by the courts, in 1952, in the so-called Tronoh Mines case, rendered totally ineffective limits on candidates' spending by allowing spending on national campaigns to escape the ban provided that they did not mention a candidate's name. Although it is a simple matter to put right, it has taken almost 50 years to plug that simple loophole. However good our motives, therefore, it is essential that we do not create another loophole.

Mr. William Ross: I have tabled several amendments in this group and I have also added my name to the Conservative amendment No. 152.
I listened to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) with interest. Like most others who talk about Northern Ireland, he referred to the peace process. I concluded long ago that it was not a peace process, but simply an appeasement process, which has gone on apace for far too long. I was also interested that he was against special provisions being made for Northern Ireland.
The reason for such special provisions is evident: it is to make Northern Ireland different and then use that difference as an excuse for further separate provisions. It becomes a vicious circle. We do not want Northern Ireland to be different—we want it to be as much like the rest of the United Kingdom as possible. It has become clear over the years that only when the Province is fully integrated in every way into the United Kingdom can the violence and the horrors that we have seen be contained. Those who try to tell us that they can be contained in an all-Ireland ambit miss the point. There are 1 million people in Northern Ireland who do not want to be part of an all-Ireland republic. They have steadily voted against it and no doubt they will go on doing so. The proportions of those who are nationalist and Unionist in Northern Ireland have not changed much in the past 80 years, and I see no prospect of them changing. When differences are created, the Unionist population see them not as an attempt to address a real problem, but as an attempt by the Government to push them in a direction in which they do not want to go. Pushing majorities in a direction in which they do not want to go is dangerous and is not a course of action that should commend itself to anyone.
My first amendment is No. 169. The aim is to ensure that each of the parties covered by the clause has a point of authority within Northern Ireland that exercises oversight of the party there. It is essential to ring-fence expenditure on elections in Northern Ireland to those who stand within the boundaries of Northern Ireland. The Government should accept that principle and apply it as swiftly as possible.
The amendment could mean that a United Kingdom or Great Britain party would need such an office. Reference has already been made to the position of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland. However, in practice it would bear only on Sinn Fein, which, as we all know, is one of the public political faces of terrorism. No one seriously questions that proposition. It is a fact that the leading members of Sinn Fein are also members of the IRA and are known to be its leaders. It may not be possible to prove that in court, but if Ministers get a full-blown security briefing, they will find that the intelligence on the people concerned would convince even the most doubtful.
Clause 63(l)(a)(i) refers to "a Northern Ireland party". Government amendment No. 24 would change that to "each Northern Ireland party". That needs closer examination. By referring to Northern Ireland parties, the Government appear to have excluded Sinn Fein—which is an all-Ireland party—from the scope of the Bill. If the Minister's officials have not yet addressed that matter, no doubt they will before he replies. In any case, I am not certain that using "each" instead of "a" improves the Bill.

5 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his amendment No. 169 would not discriminate against the Women's

Coalition or the Progressive Unionist party, but that amendment No. 168 would because of the numbers of Members that each party has in the now-suspended Northern Ireland Assembly? Also, would not amendment No. 172 discriminate against my hon. Friends who are members of the Social Democratic and Labour party?

Mr. Ross: The intention is to make it difficult for the terrorist parties. All the parties that the hon. Gentleman has named are not involved in terrorism, as far as I know. The Women's Coalition and the SDLP are perfectly legitimate parties. They would not be affected because they are not getting money from across the border. If they were, that would be interesting information.

Dr. Godman: Am I right that each of the two parties to which I referred has just two members in the legislative Assembly? I ask the hon. Gentleman again—would not his amendment No. 168 discriminate against the Women's Coalition and the Progressive Unionist party? What kind of message does that send to the smaller parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Mr. Ross: I am not really concerned about those parties. The number of votes that those parties get is so small that it is doubtful whether they would gain election in a normal election. When everything settles down, those parties will almost certainly disappear. I am aiming at the one party that is the terrorist front.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman should try to answer the question.

Mr. Ross: I think that I have answered it. I am not all that concerned about the tiny parties, but I am concerned with the terrorist front and the IRA. The amendments are aimed at the IRA, and the hon. Gentleman is raising red herrings because he knows perfectly well what my amendments intend to do.

Mr. Hogg: I acknowledge the democratic credentials of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). As I understand the Bill, the definition of a Northern Ireland party includes the requirement for representation in this place or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If a democratic party has not achieved representation in one or the other, it cannot benefit from the provisions of clause 63, as it now stands. That sounds to me to be extremely discriminatory.

Mr. Ross: I recognise what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. If the Northern Ireland Assembly were to disappear, the parties about which the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is concerned would not be caught by the Bill's provisions in any case. If he wanted to protect them, he should have tabled his own amendments to prevent them from being swept away from the political scene in those circumstances.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I would appreciate clarification from the hon. Gentleman of amendments Nos. 168 and 172. It seems to me that the amendments would bite not on Sinn Fein, but on a number of other parties, such as the Northern Ireland Unionist party, the United Unionist Assembly party, the Progressive Unionist party and the


United Kingdom Unionist party which have four, three, two and one representatives respectively in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Ross: The Minister knows that I have said that I am not all that concerned about those tiny parties. If an election were held tomorrow, they would have no representative in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am trying to get at the terrorists' face, and I believe that my amendments would bear heavily upon that.
The plain truth is that the Minister has not explained to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is a well-known barrister, how a Northern Ireland party is defined by membership of the bodies named in the Bill. Suppose that the Northern Ireland Assembly disappears—we would then be left with a situation in which several parties could no longer be defined as Northern Ireland parties.
Can Sinn Fein be defined as a Northern Ireland party? In one sense it is, but in another it is not because it is an all-Ireland party, which is totally different. The courts might take a dim view of the definition, which will almost certainly be challenged as it stands. The Unionist party might find itself in some difficulty if it decided to fight elections in Great Britain. Could it then get away without declaring the source of its donations? The party might find support in some areas of Great Britain, and the SDLP or Sinn Fein might find support in other areas.
The provision is not so much a loophole as a gaping barn door. If it is left open, it could admit all sorts of as yet unforeseen evils. We never really know what will happen or what will be the consequences of leaving such a concession in the Bill with the clear intention of benefiting one party. If the Bill did hammer Sinn Fein, I would be happy to withdraw all my amendments, but I am presently inclined to press them to a Division.
Recent speculation in the press has suggested that parties in the Irish Republic would like to forge ties with the SDLP. Indeed, it would appear that advances have already been made to the SDLP by the Irish Republic's Labour party and by Fianna Fail. The SDLP is, no doubt, considering those offers in the light of the effect that they might have, both in total and in the border areas.
The aim of my amendments is to create a ring fence, inside which the Northern Ireland section of any party would have to conduct its financial affairs. The parties would be so tightly ring-fenced that their accounts would be public, the sources of their income would be public, with everyone knowing exactly what was going on, and their behaviour and activities would fall within the jurisdiction of the UK courts so that this legislation could be enforced.
It was well demonstrated by the hon. Member for North Dorset that currently there is much scope for the movement of money, which either could not be traced or would be legal. However, if the same activity were carried out in Great Britain, it would be totally illegal and the perpetrators could go to prison for it. As drafted, the Bill simply means that Northern Ireland parties would be able to do things that would bring prosecution and retribution in the courts in Great Britain. That must be wrong, because we all operate in the same nation and under the same rod of electoral law, not least to get elected as Members of Parliament.
The Government claim that they are trying to get rid of even the faintest trace of fraud and corruption from the electoral process. However, they are deliberately leaving this great barn door gaping open in Northern Ireland. I think that that barn door should be closed.
We need not ask why the Government have left the concession in the Bill. The Government know that Sinn Fein-IRA would simply break the law anyway, but they are running away from that confrontation and intend to allow in Northern Ireland what would be illegal in Great Britain. That should not be acceptable to any Member of Parliament, never mind only Opposition Members.
The Government are also refusing to take on the one organised and mass corruption of the electoral process anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is because that corruption, backed up with violence, has been so successful that the Government have failed to live up to their moral and political obligations. Evil can neither be beaten nor contained within reasonably narrow limits if we do not face up to it. We must divide it first, as a prelude to its elimination. The amendments are the first line of defence and should be accepted.
Amendments Nos. 171 and 170 would limit to one year the period of freedom to corrupt. Amendment No. 166, with amendment No. 174, would ensure that the maximum period of grace for Sinn Fein-IRA would be limited to three years. At present there is no limit to the free hand given to that murderous organisation in this matter, but a maximum limit should be set. All the amendments would close down the freedom of Sinn Fein-IRA to corrupt the electoral process.
Amendments Nos. 167 and 173 would require a registered party to abide by the rules accepted by the other parties. Amendment No. 167 would ring-fence a party's financial structure. Amendment No. 168 would mean that a party would have to boast six Assembly Members before it could benefit from the Government's concession to terrorist violence. The tiny parties will not be taking advantage of the concession, so in practice it will have no effect on them. They would escape the problems that I am trying to inflict on Sinn Fein-IRA.
Amendment No. 173 would ensure that only those who take the oath or make the affirmation after election to this House could benefit from the concession. All parties elected to this House or to the Northern Ireland Assembly should accept the standards of democracy accepted by the rest of us. If they are not required to do that, the signal to the terrorist organisations would be clear.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but does he agree that recognition of a party as bona fide could depend on its having one elected member or receiving a specific number of votes?

Mr. Ross: I do not care particularly how we separate evil people from democrats, I just want it done. If my amendments do not accomplish that, the Government still have time, even so late in the Bill's process through the House, to table amendments to that end.
Amendment No. 152 is the best solution of all. However, hon. Members might care to study starred amendment No. 183, which would take care of the element in schedule 6 that bears on this section of the Bill. It would be a great advantage if the IRA and its political face had to abide by United Kingdom law.
It should have to keep within the law, rather than be allowed to do what it wants and bring in huge sums of money. I understand that as taxation is global, the money going to the violent Republican movement is also global in terms of how it is spent. We have a right to try and tie these people down as much as we can.

There is no benefit to democrats in including these concessions to terror in the electoral law of this kingdom. Rather, they will only damage the democratic parties, and the SDLP more than most. They will be of great benefit to those who believe in the philosophy of the armalite in one hand and the ballot paper in the other.
The past behaviour of Sinn Fein-IRA makes it plain that fear of the bullet—fear of violence—can determine a ballot's outcome. I recall an incident of which I became aware after an election. A certain gentleman who had served very many years in prison discovered that the turnout from a local estate was not all that he wished. He and a few of his friends started to visit it. There was no threatening behaviour—their mere presence was sufficient. The rush in the last hour of voting was quite remarkable. Members of the House who have not seen such behaviour in action do not know the fear that these people can inspire in the community—the sheer terror that someone might some day find out exactly how a ballot was cast is sufficient to undermine and corrupt the electoral process. Giving them these concessions increases their capacity to do that. The House should not allow that to happen.
The provisions do not defend democracy, they betray them at the behest of those who occupy their current political positions by a policy of murder, mutilation and craven appeasement. I hope that the House will accept the amendments, or, if not, the Government will come up with something that accomplishes the same end.

Dr. Godman: I support the Government, and do not have much sympathy for the arguments expressed by the hon. Members for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I share his hatred of the terrorists on both sides of the divide and their political apologists, wherever they are found. Just yesterday, I visited a Royal Ulster Constabulary station in the Markets area and met the young RUC sergeant who recently won a community policeman award. I also had a meeting with General de Chastelain, so I have some knowledge of these matters.
I am concerned about the discrimination inherent in amendment No. 168. That is why I asked the hon. Member for East Londonderry whether it discriminated against the Women's Coalition, which has two Members in the legislative assembly, and the Progressive Unionist party, which also has two Members. The hon. Gentleman swept that to one side. He argued, as part of his case, that they are likely to disappear at the next election. That prediction weakens and dismantles his case. After all, some of his hon. Friends might disappear at the next election and so might some of mine. However, we cannot discriminate against the members of small parties who have secured their seats under what the hon. Gentleman called our broad electoral law. Those Members of the

legislative Assembly won their seats fair and square, according to the electoral system. The same is true of the Scottish Parliament. Its electoral system may be different from ours, but it is utterly legal and its Members won fair and square.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department pointed out from the Dispatch Box, the amendment would affect not only members of the Women's Coalition or the PUP, but fellow Unionists in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Ross: May I turn the hon. Gentleman's argument around? If it is unfair to discriminate against small parties, is it fair to pass legislation that can only be described as discriminating in favour of a terrorist organisation?

Dr. Godman: The anomaly is that Sinn Fein—normally referred to by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as Sinn Fein-IRA—Members of the Assembly would not be discriminated against if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were to be accepted. However, small parties that represent the voices and views of segments of the Northern Ireland electorate would be harshly discriminated against. The hon. Gentleman shows no concern for them.
The week before last, I met representatives of the Women's Coalition and elected Members of the PUP. They are just as hard working as Members of other parties in the Assembly—which I hope will soon be reinstituted.
I asked the hon. Gentleman whether amendment No. 172 would discriminate against the three SDLP Members who sit on the Labour Benches of this House. It was interesting that his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked a similar question. We cannot discriminate against small parties on the basis that they may disappear at the next election; they might increase their numbers.

Mr. Hogg: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. If he is right about that point, why does the Bill provide that political parties that have representation neither in this House nor the Assembly will not benefit under clause 63?

Dr. Godman: I need to be careful in my reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Government will introduce an amendment to deal with the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I am deeply concerned about the disregard shown to parties that have a small number of Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am also concerned about my hon. Friends who are SDLP Members of this House. Incidentally, if they are to join with any parties south of the border, I hope that they sign up with the Labour party rather than—

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Fianna Fail.

Dr. Godman: The Labour party would be my preference, although I know many members of both parties.
I am sorry if I have been harsh with the hon. Member for East Londonderry, but I cannot stand such discrimination against small parties. Members of small parties in the Scottish Parliament represent their


constituents reasonably. We should not discriminate against people such as Monica McWilliams and others who represent small parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman allege that the SDLP, for instance, receives money from the Irish Republic? Does he allege that any of the other small parties that he named are receiving money from America, the Irish Republic or anywhere else? Surely, they all raise their money in Northern Ireland, so the provision would be no great hardship to them.

Dr. Godman: I shall ask Monica McWilliams about that the next time I speak to her. I do not know whether the Women's Coalition has received a bob or two— or a punt or two—from south of the border to help with election expenses. I do not imagine that David Ervine would have received much from south of the border. That is a question that needs to be asked of the small parties.
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that Members representing those small parties share our abhorrence of the terrorists and their political apologists. However, I will vote against his amendments if he presses them to a Division because of the blatant discrimination that they show to the small parties and their representatives—albeit few in number—who grace an Assembly that is unfortunately suspended at the moment.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), but with some diffidence, partly because of what I heard from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I dissociate myself from several of the arguments that he advanced.
I refer back to the debate in Committee on the clause. At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office was far from satisfied with its wording. He said:
Clause 63 is unsatisfactory, but, as I said earlier, we are dealing with that.
The issue is whether any of the amendments deal with the problem. He added:
the provisions in clause 63 are temporary … I hope and believe that the provisions in clause 63 will eventually become unnecessary.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 1 February 2000; c. 197.]
He was clearly not persuaded that the Government had got the form and shape of clause 63 in good order. However, I do not believe that this amendment has got to the heart of the difficulties.
I repeat a point that I made in Committee. The situation in Northern Ireland has long required special rules so that democracy can be maintained. Provisions in the Representation of the People Act 2000 are designed essentially to ensure that democratic elections can be held in Northern Ireland. They appear in the Act in such a form that they could be applied in the rest of the United Kingdom if one wished to do so, but their essential aim is to make the democratic system a functioning proposition in Northern Ireland. That is surely the way that we should approach the matter.
If we have a special difficulty, it is not the normal form for the United Kingdom legislature to run away from it and to say, "Let them get on with it". The normal form is for us to think of ways of regulating and controlling the problem. The Bill itself acknowledges that fact. For a long

time, action on the funding of political parties was delayed on the grounds of, perhaps, self-interest and of the perceived difficulty of introducing a regime that could effectively regulate the matter.
The Government have finally bitten the bullet and, through this Bill, have introduced provisions that will control national expenditure on elections. It is perverse therefore that we should say that there is one part of the United Kingdom where we cannot find a way of getting on top of the problem and that we need clause 63 to run away from it. This clause is based on the wrong underlying philosophy and the wrong legislative theory.
As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said, the essence of the problem lies with the concept of permissible donors. One must study the Bill deeply to grasp entirely all the language in it, but, under these provisions, anyone in the world—never mind southern Ireland—can make a contribution to a United Kingdom political party with complete impunity. As has been hinted at, there does not appear to be an effective way of preventing that money from coming into mainstream, mainland political funding as well.
That process may not be very likely. If the working example is Sinn Fein, it is improbable that it will channel money to the Conservative party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. However, we have to consider the consequences of the structure that is being put in place. One of the consequences is that money can come from anywhere in the world to a party in Northern Ireland without let or hindrance. It is only one short step, which is not prohibited by the Bill, to that money flowing from a Northern Ireland party into mainstream politics on the mainland.

That is my main concern. I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I do not want terrorist parties on either side of the argument in Northern Ireland to flourish, but I recognise that a significant amount of the funding of some of those parties, on both sides of the divide, comes not from foreign sources but from rampant protection rackets in the Province. There are other sources of money flowing into the political body of Northern Ireland, and they ought to be of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
What concerns me and leads me to support the deletion of clause 63 is the fact that the clause may create a loophole that could lead to a complete bypassing of all the good work in the rest of the Bill.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) expressed his concern about single interest parties, which might prosper in Northern Ireland and Glasgow. He could see no way in which special interest parties—he had in mind pro-life parties—could be prevented from using Northern Ireland as a stepping stone to funding their activities in the United Kingdom, using money from overseas sources, and the Minister could offer him no reassurance on that point.
I do not associate myself with the arguments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that all the amendments in my name relate to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock and


Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), but most of them relate to restricting the time for which the legislation can be permitted to run to one year or to a maximum of three years.

Mr. Stunell: I accept that the wording of the hon. Gentleman's amendments would, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) indicated, have apparently unintended effects, but my point is that I do not identify with the arguments that the hon. Member for East Londonderry used to support those amendments.
The Government should accept the point made in Committee that the clause is unsatisfactory. Their amendment does not correct that point.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman took the time of the House last night to ask for a solution on federal parties. We discussed that, and he knows that the Government are minded to try to find a way forward. I also indicated in Committee and in the House last night that we could not introduce amendments to construct a fire wall between Northern Ireland and the mainland until the federal issue had been resolved. There is no lack of initiative or desire for progress on our part; there is a fundamental difficulty that prevents that progress.

Mr. Stunell: I appreciate the Minister's remarks, and I thank him for recalling what he said last night, which was appreciated and understood. However, the Government amendment leads my colleagues and I to support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Dorset.

Mr. Hogg: In rising to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) in speaking to his amendment, I shall address five matters, albeit fairly briefly.
The first point is one that I have made many times in the House, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I repeat myself. It concerns the order-making powers. The powers that we are giving to the Secretary of State are substantial. They enable the Secretary of State to enlarge the category of permissible donors so as to extend it, for example, to foreign donors, if that is what is decided. That is a large power to give to the Secretary of Secretary.
We are also enabling the Secretary of State to disapply the information-supplying requirements in the Bill. That, too, is a wide power. The Bill provides for the powers to be exercisable not under the affirmative procedure, but under the negative procedure. In other words, no action will be taken on the orders unless they are prayed against and debated.
I regard the use of secondary legislation on a matter of such importance as being profoundly unsatisfactory. On any view of the matter, the powers that we are giving to the Secretary of State are extensive. They change the ordinary requirements of law. Although I am not arguing that the affirmative procedure is a perfect instrument—I think it is a very blunt instrument because, for example, it is not amendable—it is at least better than the negative procedure.
On a matter of such importance, I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will consider using the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary is nodding. I take that as encouragement, and I hope that he will address the matter that I put to him.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) in his place. My second point goes to the Disqualifications Bill, which the House debated some time ago. I address the point now because I regretted that he was not aware of the significance of what he was saying, in the context of that Bill. He argued eloquently against foreign donations, but the Disqualifications Bill, which I am pretty sure he supported, although I spoke and voted against it, enables Members of the Dail to serve in this House. A Member of the Dail who happened to be serving in this House would be bound to be supported by foreign donations. That is absolutely certain.
If the hon. Gentleman is against foreign donations—a case that he argued extremely eloquently—he surely could not in all good conscience support the idea of Members of the Irish Dail sitting in this place. One proposition follows the other, inevitably.
The third point is, admittedly, somewhat technical, but this is the occasion for technical debates. It relates to the partisan point that I made. In clause 63(1)(a) at line 18, the reference is to "a Northern Ireland party". I am well aware that Government amendment No. 24 uses the word "each". That is a step forward, and I do not for a moment dissent from that proposition.
I am not accusing the Government of being partisan in this sense, but as the Bill is drafted, there is no doubt that the legislation would enable a partisan order to be made. I am glad that the word "each" is used.
I sympathised with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) when he queried whether the word "each" is sufficient to meet the intended purpose. I am not sure about that. I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter, although I welcome the step.
I am sorry to press the point a little further. Line 24 refers again to "a Northern Ireland party". That is in the context of the power given to the Secretary of State to lift the requirement with regard to the provision of information.
If it is right to substitute the word "each" for "a" in line 18, for the self-same reasons it must be right to substitute the word "each" for "a" in line 24. I know better than most people how difficult it is to read the amendment paper, and I may have missed an amendment making that substitution in line 24. However, the Under-Secretary will forgive me if I cannot find it. Clearly, I should be able to find it because, according to his logic, it ought to be there. If I am wrong, I apologise; if I am right, perhaps he will undertake to make the necessary substitution in another place.
My penultimate point is about discrimination. To mix metaphors, if I interpreted the Under-Secretary's body language correctly, I am pushing at an open door. I made the point earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.


The definition of a Northern Ireland party is critical to clause 63. The provision defines a Northern Ireland party as one that has representatives in this House or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, that discriminates against democratic organisations that have no elected representatives in this House or the Assembly but are represented in, for example, the European Parliament or in local government. Some even have the bad fortune not to be represented in an elected body, but are none the less democratic.
Why should clause 63 discriminate in principle between parties that have elected representatives and those that do not? I was not sure what the nods and winks across the Chamber from the Treasury Bench were telling me. Perhaps there is an amendment on the amendment paper—

Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I can clarify the matter. There is no amendment on the amendment paper, but we intend to table an amendment that will have the scope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires and that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) advocated.

Mr. Hogg: It would be churlish not to welcome that intervention. However, I am sorry that the amendment has not been tabled already because the Bill has been before the House for some time. [Interruption.] Ministers should not shake their heads; the Bill has indeed been before the House for some time.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), we cannot table the amendment now because we need to resolve issues that relate to federal parties such as the Liberal Democrats. When we have done that, we hope to table an amendment in another place.

Mr. Hogg: The word "cannot" is inappropriate. The Under-Secretary means that he has not got his tackle in order. He has had months in which to go fishing and get his tackle in order. I am not in the least sympathetic; the amendment should have been tabled. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has given us an undertaking to table such an amendment in another place. Am I right?

Mr. Tipping: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: I note the undertaking. Of course, we reserve the right to consider it further in another place and when the Bill returns to the House.

Dr. Godman: As someone who does a bit of fly fishing, I hope that my tackle is in order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to parties that are democratic but fail to secure seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. One such party is the Ulster Democratic party, which is led by Gary McMichael. It won a fair amount of votes, but no seats.

Mr. Hogg: I am not trying to distinguish between democratic parties. If parties are democratic, they should be able to benefit from clause 63, irrespective of whether they have elected representatives. To be fair to the Labour Front Bench, Ministers are now conceding that point, for which I am grateful.
My last point was also made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are legislating for the future. Over time, the mainstream parties of Great Britain may choose to become represented in Northern Ireland. Ministers will bear in mind that the Conservative party—unofficially, I think, but no matter for these purposes—has promoted itself in Northern Ireland from time to time.
5.45 pm
The hon. Member for Battersea is correct that clause 63 might enable foreign donations to go to a wing of a Great Britain party operating in Northern Ireland. In the absence of a firebreak, that money could, perfectly properly, be filtered into Great Britain. Once one has accepted as the working assumption the proposition that foreign donations are a bad thing—I am agnostic and prepared to argue the issue—one must address the question of the firebreak. On that point, I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who is no longer present, and the hon. Member for Battersea.
I do not like to be churlish and think that I have been given at least two undertakings. I pocket them both, although I regret that they were not in the Bill, and look forward to receiving lots more.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Clause 63 enables a temporary exemption from the normal restrictions on donations and the reporting requirements established by the Bill to be made for Northern Ireland parties. The amendment would remove that provision. The issues raised by the clause were discussed at considerable length in Committee, and the Government acknowledge that it would of course be preferable if it were not necessary to create any such exemptions, but the Neill committee reviewed the question carefully and concluded that there was no alternative. The Government reluctantly agree.
In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that we cannot pick and choose from the Neill committee report and sought to put himself firmly on that ground. He suggested that we were not there with him, but if he wants to make that point perhaps he ought to consider whether he should stick to it himself.

Mr. Robathan: Of course the Government are picking and choosing all the way down the line, particularly with regard to various points about referendums. However, the amendment does not address exactly what the Neill committee said. It would give the Government much wider scope for making an order and, in respect of permissible sources, could allow to happen things other than what the Neill committee set out in recommendation 29.

Mr. O'Brien: I understand that Lord Neill has said that he is happy with the Bill's drafting and that it achieves what he feels is fair and practical in all the circumstances, particularly in relation to these measures at least. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.
It remains the case that some donors in Northern Ireland could be subject to discrimination or retaliation if publicly identified. That is the nub of the problem. We know that those who donate to certain political parties—let us be specific; perhaps to the Social Democratic and Labour party—may fear assault or worse. We should be aware of that concern, which might face anyone who


considers donating to a parliamentary and constitutional party from the nationalist community in which there is some dissension.
The choice between risking such consequences and ceasing to make donations is not one that we would wish people in Northern Ireland to have to make. The nationalist community has clear links with the Irish Republic and there is no great secret about that, although the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seemed to suggest that perhaps there is. The SDLP may receive substantial financial support from the Irish Republic—I am not sure that it has ever denied that—and may receive donations from other reputable European sources. I do not know whether it receives money from the United States, but it would not surprise me if it does.

Mr. William Ross: If the SDLP is receiving substantial support from the Irish Republic, why should that not be public knowledge when it would have to be public knowledge in respect of the Labour party?

Mr. O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the concern of those who may have donated to the SDLP about their safety might still be present in the Irish Republic. Those who might wish them ill may not be excluded by a border. That is a concern of which we must be aware.
The hon. Member for North Dorset advanced some arguments with which I must deal. First, he argued that the clause might exacerbate the peace process. Our view is that it would not. Removal of the clause would disproportionately disadvantage nationalist parties as against other parties because nationalist parties tend to have links with the Republic, which will be precluded by the Conservative amendment. That does not sit easily with at least the spirit of the peace process, which aims to be inclusive rather than reinforcing the position of one community, perhaps to the disadvantage of political parties that seek to represent the other community.

Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time. I have been generous to him.

Mr. Robathan: The Minister has been generous, but I have been generous to him in not hanging around and making another speech, which I could do.
We are dealing with an important clause and I have been listening carefully to the Minister. This is not a party political provision. The Minister's logic is completely flawed. He has said that decent law-abiding people in the Irish Republic who may wish to contribute to a Northern Ireland nationalist party, namely the SDLP, must not be identified. However, he has said that we must allow people to donate from whatever source to nationalist parties—republican parties—in the north of Ireland. The only people feared by those whom he wishes not to be identified in the Irish Republic are members of Sinn Fein, with its inextricable links with the IRA. That logic seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman. Sinn Fein is being helped by the clause—as I have said, it is inextricably linked with the IRA—and that is the purpose of the second part of the clause.

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman had been present throughout the debate, he would perhaps realise that one

of the concerns is about parties such as the SDLP, and not so much Sinn Fein, which might well be caused some difficulties if we did not at least have a provision such as the clause. I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches seeks to cause the SDLP effectively to be unable to function. I have had representations from the SDLP to the effect that there is a need to bear in mind the particular difficulties that it faces in finding funds in a very difficult situation within the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. We need at least to be aware of that, and that is the basis on which we put the clause before the House.
The hon. Member for North Dorset argued that it would be wrong to turn a blind eye to the way in which Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I believe that it would be wrong to turn a blind eye to the realities and to the differences that are self-evident in Northern Ireland. The histories of the communities and the politics of Northern Ireland are in many ways different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom because of recent and longer-term events, and to ignore that is unreasonable. It is not only Sinn Fein that is different, but the SDLP and the entire way in which Northern Ireland politics functions.
The peace process is going on in Northern Ireland—or not, depending on Members' points of view. However, we need to be aware of the differences in Northern Ireland. On that basis, I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
We should be aware that in Northern Ireland there is a party that is organised on an all-Ireland basis. If we were to insist that the normal provisions of the Bill be applied in full, we would in effect be saying that parties that organise on other than a merely northern Irish basis would need to change their entire party organisation. The SDLP has always been a constitutional party with a strong commitment to peace, but it has close links to the south. Some people would argue that such parties should change their organisation, including Sinn Fein and perhaps the SDLP, but I think that we are honouring the Good Friday agreement in principle and the peace process if we maintain the Bill's provisions as we have put them forward. We would not be doing that if we sought to erect certain barriers against nationalist parties.
Some amendments in the group are concerned with the definition of a Northern Ireland party. The Bill defines such parties in terms of whether they are represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly, or have one or more Members of the House elected for Northern Ireland constituencies. The Neill committee commented that the definition is too narrow and unfair, both to those parties which have yet to achieve electoral success and to those which have but may not continue to do so. Against that background, we cannot support a narrowing of the definition of a Northern Ireland party. The Government intend to bring forward amendments in another place that will extend the definition so that it covers all parties that contest elections in Northern Ireland and are included in a separate register of Northern Ireland parties.
Since we discussed these matters in Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—

Mr. Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman, but I am anxious to make progress.

Mr. Ross: The Minister is saying that it is possible to have regional legislation bearing on the registration of Northern Ireland parties. Will he withhold that benefit from parties that are regional in the sense that they contest elections only in Wales or Scotland?

Mr. O'Brien: There is a situation in Northern Ireland of which the hon. Gentleman, perhaps more than anyone else, is well aware. By seeking to muddy the water, he does himself no good. In his earlier intervention, he did not deal with my argument that the effect of his amendments would be to narrow the scope of the definition of Northern Ireland parties so as to include only those with six or more Members, rather than one, of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or four or more rather than one Member of this place who have been elected for Northern Ireland constituencies. It seems that his amendments would not bite on Sinn Fein, and he did not explain how they would. However, they would appear to bite on a few Unionist parties, including the Northern Ireland Unionist party, the United Unionist Assembly party, the Progressive Unionist party and the United Kingdom Unionist party, which have four, three, two and one Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to assert that his amendments would bite merely on Sinn Fein, and on our reading of them it seems that they cannot. He simply said that he did not believe that that mattered or that they would bite on the smaller Unionist parties, but he offered no explanation. It seems that there is no logic in his argument.
The Government's intention is to ensure that we create as much fairness as we can in a difficult situation. When we discussed these matters in Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had an opportunity to meet the main Northern Ireland parties, and he did so. The balance of opinion among them was that exemptions from the disclosure requirements of part IV are essential. Given that view, it remains the Government's intention to exercise the order-making power in clause 63 so as to disapply the provisions of part IV in respect of northern Irish parties.
We are minded to apply such an order initially for four years, and review it thereafter. We believe that if we are able to remove the disclosure exemptions, we would wish to do so as soon as is practicable. If the peace process were to succeed, we would hope that circumstances would present themselves to enable us to remove the exemptions in four years or even less. That depends on the circumstances that apply.
6 pm
Amendments Nos. 166, 170 and 171 are an attempt by the hon. Member for East Londonderry to try to put a more reasonable face on his proposals. The amendments would provide for a more restricted application of such an order—that is, for one year in the first instance, with a possibility of no more than two annual renewals. It might be that the hon. Gentleman hopes that the conditions that the Neill committee regarded as giving rise to the need for the exemptions for Northern Ireland will have eased within one year, and that he is confident that they will have disappeared within three years. Time will tell, but, for now, the Government consider that an initial

period of four years is appropriate. We are not being dogmatic: if circumstances improve, the Government hope to be able to be more helpful.
Amendment No. 174 would require that an order made under clause 63(1A), which amendment No. 166 would insert, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government do not propose to accept amendment No. 166 and therefore cannot accept amendment No. 174 as it stands. However, it is implicit in the amendment that an order under clause 63(1) as it stands should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On reflection, the Government agree with that proposition and will table an amendment to that effect in another place. I hope that that reassures the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) spoke to amendment No. 164. The Government are well aware of the concern that any exemptions for Northern Ireland parties will undermine the effectiveness of the ban on foreign funding of political parties in the rest of the United Kingdom. One possible consequence of an order made under clause 63 is to enable a party that organises on a UK-wide basis to escape the prohibition on foreign funding by channelling funding through branches in Northern Ireland. Clearly, we want to avoid that. Unfortunately, the amendment takes a rather heavy-handed approach to the problem. Its effect could be to prevent any order being made under subsection (1)(b) at all, thereby nullifying the whole provision. None the less, the issue is one of genuine concern and I hope to be able to reassure the House.
The Government will table amendments in another place that will prevent Northern Ireland parties from acting as conduits for the transfer of foreign donations to parties, or branches of parties, operating in Great Britain. All parties entered on the Northern Ireland register will benefit from the terms of any order made under clause 63. However, the quid pro quo is that a party registered in Northern Ireland will be prevented from making a donation to a party registered in Great Britain. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, that might have implications for the administration of parties that operate on a UK-wide basis, but it is only by establishing a fire wall between parties in Great Britain and parties in Northern Ireland that we can ensure that the ban on foreign funding is effectively enforced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea is reassured by what I have said and will not press his amendment.

Mr. Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so. I am anxious to make progress.
Government amendment No. 24 responds to a drafting point picked up by the hon. Member for North Dorset in Committee. Clause 63(1) provides that an exemption made under that subsection may apply in relation to "a Northern Ireland party". The current wording is open to the unintended interpretation that the application of such an exemption order might be limited to only one Northern Ireland party, as opposed to the generality of Northern Ireland parties.
I shall reflect on the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about the wording of the subsequent part of the clause.


However, Government amendment No. 24 would ensure that any order made under clause 63 will apply to all Northern Ireland parties. It is not possible to specify individual parties. The reference to "a Northern Ireland party" in clause 63(1)(b) occurs in a different context to the reference in clause 63(1)(a). In our view, any order made under clause 63(1)(b) would apply to all Northern Ireland parties. However, I shall consider the issue and write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Walter: I shall confine my remarks to the amendment standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It would strike out clause 63, which we consider unacceptable.
I was gratified that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) alluded to the position of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland. I was more gratified by his stating the view, shared by the Conservatives, that a permissible source should be one that is investigable in the United Kingdom; a source must be within the United Kingdom, otherwise we shall not know whence the money comes.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that he did not want Northern Ireland to be different. That is exactly why we tabled the amendment to strike out the clause. The hon. Gentleman's amendments that would ring-fence Northern Ireland are not acceptable to us, nor do we believe that they would be workable, as they would still allow foreign donations to come to political parties in the United Kingdom. However, he is right to say that the Government are failing in their moral and political duty in this respect. Allowing the clause to remain part of the Bill would be an outrage to democracy.
We share the concerns of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) about small parties. If our amendment is accepted, Northern Ireland will be treated in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, thereby allaying those concerns.
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and his colleagues. He reflected on the assurances given by the Minister in Committee, and I shall briefly quote the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who said:
I hope that one day soon the situation will be normalised and the provisions of the Bill will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 1 February 2000; c. 190.]
We see no reason why that should not happen right now.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department spoke of a "temporary restriction". He went on to suggest that if we tried to remove it, we would be cherry-picking from the Neill report. As I said, the Northern Ireland situation has moved on; we are not cherry-picking from Neill, but dealing with a set of circumstances that has changed.
The Under-Secretary says that the reason for the provisions is to ensure anonymity of donors to Northern Ireland political parties. If he wants them to get anonymity, why does the Bill not deal specifically with anonymity for United Kingdom citizens who would otherwise be permissible donors under clause 48? Instead, clause 63 would allow foreign donations—such as those made from the United States of America to Sinn Fein in

Northern Ireland. The clause drives a coach and horses through the Bill, which is designed to ensure financial propriety in the way in which we in this country conduct our affairs.
We believe that the basic tenets of the Neill report are abused by clause 63. The clause allows exemptions for foreign donations. It is therefore unacceptable and we urge the House to support our amendment and so to reject the clause.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 295.

Division No. 105]
[6.9 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fox, Dr Liam


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fraser, Christopher


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Garnier, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Baker, Norman
Gibb, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Ballard, Jackie
Gray, James


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Green, Damian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Greenway, John


Bercow, John
Grieve, Dominic


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Blunt, Crispin
Hague, Rt Hon William


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Boswell, Tim
Hammond, Philip


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Harris, Dr Evan


Brady, Graham
Hawkins, Nick


Brake, Tom
Heald, Oliver


Brand, Dr Peter
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Brazier, Julian
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Breed, Colin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Horam, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Burnett, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Burstow, Paul
Jenkin, Bernard


Butterfill, John
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)




Key, Robert


Cash, William
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chope, Christopher
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lansley, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Letwin, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Collins, Tim
Livsey, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cotter, Brian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cran, James
Loughton, Tim


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Donaldson, Jeffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
Madel, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Feam, Ronnie
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Forsythe, Clifford
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
May, Mrs Theresa






Moore, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Streeter, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Stunell, Andrew


Norman, Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Oaten, Mark
Syms, Robert


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Paice, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Paterson, Owen
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pickles, Eric
Townend, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Prior, David
Trend, Michael


Randall, John
Tyler, Paul


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


Rendel, David
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wardle, Charles


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Waterson, Nigel


Ruffley, David
Webb, Steve


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wells, Bowen


St Aubyn, Nick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sanders, Adrian
Whittingdale, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard
Willetts, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wilshire, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soames, Nicholas



Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Peter Luff and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Stephen Day.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caplin, Ivor


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Cawsey, Ian


Allen, Graham
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ashton, Joe



Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Begg, Miss Anne
Connarty, Michael


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Best, Harold
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Crausby, David


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Borrow, David



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam


Buck, Ms Karen
Darvill, Keith


Burden, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burgon, Colin
Davidson, Ian


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell-Savours, Dale



Cann, Jamie
Dawson, Hilton





Dean, Mrs Janet
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Etherington, Bill
Leslie, Christopher


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Linton, Martin


Flint, Caroline
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lock, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCabe, Steve


Fyfe, Maria
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gapes, Mike
McDonnell, John


Gardiner, Barry
McFall, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gerrard, Neil
McIsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
MacShane, Denis


Goggins, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy


Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grogan, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gunnell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mlller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hesford, Stephen
Moonie. Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin
Mountford, Kali


Howells, Dr Kim
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Illsley, Eric
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jamieson, David
Pearson, Ian


Jenkins, Brian
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Radice, Rt Hon Giles






Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Todd, Mark


Ruane, Chris
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Joan
Truswell, Paul


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sawford, Phil
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tynan, Bill


Shaw, Jonathan
Ward, Ms Claire


Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
White, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Wilson, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Snape, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Wood, Mike


Southworth, Ms Helen
Woodward, Shaun


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stevenson, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wyatt, Derek


Stinchcombe, Paul



Stoate, Dr Howard
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Stringer, Graham
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 40, line 18, leave out "a" and insert "each".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 6

CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS AND MEMBERS ASSOCIATIONS

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 111, line 29, leave out "sub-paragraph (3)" and insert "this Schedule".

No. 98, in page 114, line 7, leave out "falling within section 48(2)".

No. 99, in page 114, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 100, in page 114, line 45, at end insert—
'Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors
5A.—(1) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this Schedule.
(2) Any payment out of public funds received by a regulated donee which is a members association, for its use and benefit in connection with any of its political activities, shall be regarded as a controlled donation received by the association from a permissible donor.
(3) Any donation received by a regulated donee shall (if it would not otherwise fall to be so regarded) be regarded as a controlled donation received by the donee from a permissible donor if and to the extent that—

(a) the purpose of the donation is to meet qualifying costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with any visit—

(i) by the donee in connection with any of the donee's political activities, or

(ii) in the case of a members association, by any member or officer of the association in connection with any of its political activities,

to a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(b) the amount of the donation does not exceed a reasonable amount in respect of such costs.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3) "qualifying costs", in relation to the donee or (as the case may be) any member or officer of the donee, means costs relating to that person in respect of—

(a) travelling between the United Kingdom and the country or territory in question; or
(b) travelling, accommodation or subsistence while within that country or territory.

(5) Any controlled donation received by a regulated donee from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the donee—

(a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the donee, is a permissible donor, or
(b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),

shall be regarded as a controlled donation received by the donee from a person who is not a permissible donor.'.

No. 101, in page 114, line 47, at end insert "regulated donee and any".

No. 102, in page 114, line 49, after first "a" insert "registered party and any".

No. 103, in page 115, line 46, after "paragraph;" insert—
`(aa) any reference to section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors)(2) or to section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors)(3) shall be construed as a reference to paragraph 5A(2) above or to paragraph 5A(3) above respectively;'.

No. 104, in page 115, line 48, at end insert—
'(6) In the case of a donation to which paragraph 5A(2) applies, sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall have effect as if for "by the same permissible donor" there were substituted "in circumstances falling within paragraph 5A(2)".
(7) In the case of a donation to which paragraph 5A(3) applies—

(a) sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall have effect as if for "by the same permissible donor" there were substituted "in circumstances falling within paragraph 5A(3) by the same donor"; and
(b) any report prepared by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above in respect of the donation must give—


(i) the date or dates on or between which the visit to which the donation relates took place, and
(ii) the destination and purpose of the visit.'.

No. 137, in page 118, line 28, leave out "or 9(3)" and insert ", 9(3) or 9(4)".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 7

CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE: QUALIFYING EXPENSES

Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 120, line 30, at end add—
'(f) any legal or other professional expenses incurred in respect of, or in connection with, any requirement in this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 25 and 35.
Amendment No. 148, in schedule 12, page 146, line 18, at end add—
`(f) any legal or other professional expenses incurred in respect of, or in connection with, any requirement in this Act.'.
Government amendment No. 71.

Mr. Grieve: In Committee, we were interested in the lists of expenses that would constitute campaign expenditure, or referendum expenditure, for the purpose of "notching up" to the limits that would be allowable. Certain exclusions are provided, under which expenses do not count in respect of that ceiling. They include
expenses in respect of any property, services or facilities so far as those expenses fall to be met out of public funds … remuneration or allowances payable to any member of the permanent staff of the party … reasonable expenses incurred in respect of an individual by way of travelling expenses
—enabling the individual to travel around his constituency, or to conduct a referendum campaign. It is noticeable that we have not discussed the expenses that will be incurred by political parties to achieve compliance with the Bill. Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 would exempt
any legal or other professional expenses incurred in respect of, or in connection with, any requirement in this Act.
As I am sure the Minister will accept, there is no doubt that compliance with the Bill will place financial burdens on political parties. If, in the past, parties have relied on auditors—who may not have been qualified—to do the work on a benevolent basis, it is likely that in future they will have to pay for proper auditors and accountants. Election and referendum campaigns will involve administrative burdens, and in the case of the larger parties, that burden is likely to require the recruitment of staff to ensure complete compliance with the legislation. I hope that the Minister considers it reasonable to assume that it would be wrong to ask parties to deduct the amount involved from their campaign expenditure ceiling.
Let me issue a slight caveat in regard to my own proposals. I can envisage the possibility of the running up of legal expenses by a political party or individual defending a prosecution under the Bill, and if conviction were to follow, it might be argued that the exemption should not apply. If the Minister wishes to consider that further, I shall not stand in his way. It must be right, however, for basic, day-to-day administrative expenses that will impose an additional burden on all political parties, especially smaller parties, to be excluded, as we propose in amendments Nos. 147 and 148—which are identical, apart from the fact that amendment No. 148 applies to referendum expenses.
I know that the Minister has tabled amendments, and I welcome them. They take on board what was said in Committee about the need to raise some of the de minimis levels of expenditure to reduce the burden on political parties, and Opposition Members will support them.

Mr. Tipping: Government amendments Nos. 25, 35 and 71 are indeed concerned with increasing de minimis provision in the case of notional services. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, the issue was discussed in Committee; indeed, he and his hon. Friends pressed the Government to increase the provision, and I am delighted to have been able to respond. Given the consensus that appears to exist, perhaps I can let the matter rest there.
Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 would add to the list of items in schedules 7 and 12 that are not to be regarded as constituting election or referendum expenses in respect of legal or other professional services incurred in connection with compliance with the Bill. When I first looked at the amendments, I thought they were drawn very widely, but I believed that I knew what their purpose was. I must be fair to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield: he gave some examples, and rightly pointed out that the Bill would place extra burdens on all political parties. I think that he—also being fair, as ever—will acknowledge that, throughout the Bill's passage so far, the Government have provided a series of stepping stones, providing for a light touch in respect of smaller parties and more rigorous enforcement in respect of those with larger incomes and expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that, earlier in the Bill, the Government allow the Electoral Commission to establish a scheme to distribute money to help political parties to prepare for the legislation. He will also recall that the amount is £500,000 for all political parties.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that there would be teething troubles, and that the Bill would produce extra burdens; but I am not convinced that the burdens on the larger parties—dare I call them the mainstream parties?—will be as great as he suggested. All the major parties already have the benefit of legal advice, and their accounts are already professionally audited.
6.30 pm
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that, because it is new legislation, there could be recourse to legal fees. I had thought that the amendments were aimed primarily at legal fees, but now that he has drawn attention to them, they include other professional services, too.
I have looked in particular at the legal fees issue. I am not entirely convinced—although I will look at the matter again now that we have had the opportunity to discuss it and to hear the concerns—that his amendments are necessary. The advice that I have received at this stage is that legal fees in connection with referendums and campaign expenditure in a general election or local election could well not count against campaign fees at all. That is a moot area.
I am certainly of the opinion that there is a strong argument that the provision of such professional fees will not be counted against campaign expenditure, but I will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said in outlining the matter. If he will give me leave, I will look at it again in the light of his comments and write to him. If necessary, and if there are the concerns that he spells out, we will make the appropriate adjustments.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister's words are partially reassuring, but not perhaps quite as reassuring as I had hoped. I appreciate that he may not have understood the full scope of the amendment. One of the reasons for Report stage is the opportunity to discuss these matters. May I take a separate example? If I submit a tax return, I am allowed to deduct a proportion of my accountancy fees from my total income. There is an analogy here. If parties have to spend money to operate the system correctly, as the Bill demands, it will be wrong for that money to count towards their campaign expenditure.
I was thinking much more along those administrative lines than in terms of exceptional legal fees, which is precisely why I said that I could foresee a situation where, if a party got itself into difficulty and incurred legal fees because it was in trouble with the law, it might be regarded as wrong to give it such an exemption. However, that could easily be put into an amendment, if the Government applied their mind to it.

Mr. David Heath: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's case. I am not sure that I agree with the exemption point. If a legal case arose from the Bill, it could not possibly be construed as campaign funds. It cannot genuinely fall within the scope of campaign expenditure.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I dare say the Minister will take that on board, too. When introducing these measures, I try to look at different facets of an amendment. It seemed a point that could validly be made against us. His point is perfectly valid; I am grateful to him for having made it.

Mr. Tipping: I reinforce the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has made. The advice that I have received so far—as I say, I will look at it in the context of the debate—is that such expenditure would not count against electoral expenses—but I will write to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the matter.

Mr. Grieve: Again, I am grateful to the Minister. I would not wish to press the amendments any further, but I hope that the matter will be looked at and addressed, so that by the time the Bill gets to the other place, there can be complete clarity as to whether such an amendment is needed. If not, I hope that the Government will provide a positive response, or that the matter may be revisited at a later stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66

NOTIONAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 42, line 17, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 67

OFFICERS OF REGISTERED PARTY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 43, line 27, leave out from "if' to "he" in line 31.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 27 to 31, 34, 41 to 44, 53, 65 to 69, 124, 80 and 81.

Mr. Tipping: This is a large group of amendments. I am delighted to say that, without exception, they all

arise from the eagle eyes of the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who gave much helpful advice in Committee, and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who, when I look back at the record, first introduced the concept of criminal offences. All the amendments respond to the points made in Committee. We have worked hard to put the Bill in good shape. At this stage, it would be best for me to sit down, to respond to any concerns and complaints and to give a further undertaking that, if we are still not quite there—I think that we are and that we have done the job—we will revisit the matter.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for having taken on board the comments in Committee. Perhaps it is right that the House should be aware of what happened. By my calculation, 70 criminal offences arise out of the legislation. Although defences were offered on one or two, when the Bill went to Committee, the vast majority were absolute offences, so they could criminalise party treasurers, even association treasurers and all sorts of other people. There was no defence of reasonable excuse, or the other defences that one would normally expect in a—dare I say it?— a civilised society.
I am mindful of the fact that part of the Government's explanation was that they tried to copy other legislation, but we pointed out that, in doing that, the draftsmen—I suspect somewhat overwhelmed by the scope and detail of the legislation—had some difficulty and failed to note that defences of reasonable excuse were offered in similar legislation and should thus be incorporated in the Bill.
I am grateful to the Government. In looking through the Bill, I have tried to see that all the points have been covered. I shall continue to do that, as doubtless the Minister and draftsmen will, but I am obliged to the Government for having accepted that important point. It is wrong that people should be convicted of criminal offences when they have acted in what any layman would consider a completely innocent manner.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 43, line 32, leave out "that subsection" and insert "subsection (3)".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 68

RESTRICTION ON INCURRING CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 44, line 10, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 69

RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 44, line 29, after "if', insert "without reasonable excuse".

No. 30, in page 44, line 31, leave out ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 70

RESTRICTION ON MAKING CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 45, line 1, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".

No. 32, in page 45, line 34, leave out first "the" and insert "any".

No. 33, in page 45, line 35, at end insert—
`(za) in which is situated the office of the treasurer, deputy treasurer or (as the case may be) other authorised person to whom the claim is sent pursuant to subsection (1) or;'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 75

SUBMISSION OF RETURNS TO THE COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 48, line 38, after "if," insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 79

NOTIONAL CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 51, line 5, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 81

THIRD PARTIES RECOGNISED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PART

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 52, line 18, leave out from "which" to "complies" in line 24.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 135 and 37 to 40.

Mr. Tipping: Amendments Nos. 36 to 40 relate to the notification procedure in respect of third parties at elections. By making a notification to the Electoral Commission, a third party is able to incur controlled expenditure in excess of the limits set out in clause 87(5)—£10,000 in England and £5,000 in other parts of the UK—up to the limits set out in schedule 9.
There was some discussion in Standing Committee of the statement to be made by a third party under clause 81(1). In response to questions from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), I said that the Government would table an amendment to clarify subsection (1)(b). On further reflection, we now believe that it would be preferable simply to omit paragraphs (a) and (b). That is the effect of Government amendment No. 36.
The purpose of clause 81 is to bring those third parties that intend to incur significant controlled expenditure within the Electoral Commission's regulatory jurisdiction. We want to make that as easy as possible, not least to prevent a third party from inadvertently committing an offence by exceeding the expenditure limits in clause 87(5).
There may be circumstances in which a third party will need to make a notification to the Electoral Commission under clause 81(1), to avoid committing an offence under

clause 87, but in which they could not honestly make a statement that they intend to incur expenditure in excess of the relevant limit in the next 12 months. Removing the need to make a statement in the terms set out in clause 81(1)(a) and (b) will ensure that a third party is not forced into a catch-22 situation.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are consequential on No. 36.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 37 and 38 is to ensure that a notification by a third party does not lapse during a regulated period for the purposes of the expenditure limits provided in schedule 9. The need for the amendments is perhaps best illustrated by the following example. A recognised third party may incur controlled expenditure up to a limit of £11,259, in Wales, in the four months before a European parliamentary election. As the Bill stands, were a third party's notification to lapse half way through that four-month campaign, it could spend £11,000 as a recognised third party in the first half of the campaign, and then up to another £5,000 in the second half of the campaign in its capacity as an unrecognised third party. That would clearly be contrary to the expenditure controls provided in part VI.
To guard against that possibility, new subsection (3A), inserted by amendment No. 38, provides that, when a notification would otherwise lapse during the currency of a regulated period, it shall be deemed to continue in force until the end of that period.
The amendments in this group deal with small but important parts of the Bill, and they provide extra clarification.

Mr. Walter: I do not want to delay the House for long, but an issue arises when one reads clause 81 and the amendments in this group. I am still somewhat disturbed about that issue, as I was in Committee when we were considering it. Although I acknowledge the points that the Minister has made, I am still concerned that the amendments in this group fail to address some of the issues that were raised in Committee.
6.45 pm
In clause 81, there is a fascinating turn of phrase about an "unincorporated association", and the need to state
the name of the association,
if it is a recognised third party, and
the address of an office of the association in the United Kingdom—
as if the association might have offices outside the United Kingdom.
Although we have gone to great lengths in the rest of the Bill to ensure that we prevent foreign influence over our electoral process, the Bill still provides that one could be a recognised third party without necessarily being a United Kingdom citizen or an association in the United Kingdom. In fact, one could be a foreign body.
When clause 81 was drafted, I was told that it could not be amended because it had to comply with the European convention on human rights. We have to be clear, therefore, that the clause will allow a group of foreign individuals to come to the United Kingdom, perhaps to take a suite of rooms at the Savoy hotel, and to register with the Electoral Commission. Subsequently, those individuals may each spend £500,000 across the United


Kingdom—on newspaper advertisements, posters and leaflets through the door—all in support of a particular political cause, and all paid for by foreigners.
The clause, as amended by the Government today, is still a glaring leak in the Bill's provisions seeking to ban foreign donations and foreign influence on our political process. The leak is still there, and the Government have done nothing to remove it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 135, in page 52, line 25, at end insert—
'(1A) A third party may only give a notification under subsection (1) if—

(a) an individual,
(b) a company falling within section 48(2)(b), or
(c) an unincorporated association of such a description as is mentioned in section 48(2)(f).'.

No. 37, in page 53, line 4, after "shall" insert—
`, subject to subsection (3A),'.

No. 38, in page 53, line 7, at end insert—
`(3A) Where—

(a) the original notification would apart from this subsection lapse under subsection (3)(b) at the end of any such period of three months as is mentioned in that provision, but
(b) the end of that period falls within any regulated period at the end of which a return will fall to be prepared under section 89 in respect of controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the third party during the regulated period,

the original notification shall be treated, for all purposes connected with controlled expenditure so incurred during the regulated period, as lapsing at the end of that period instead.'.

No. 39, in page 53, line 13, leave out from "statement" to "subsection" in line 16 and insert "conforming with".

No. 40, in page 53, line 26, leave out—
`subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (as the case may be)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 83

RESTRICTION ON INCURRING CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 54, line 9, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 84

RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 54, line 27, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".

No. 43, in page 54, line 29, leave out ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 85

RESTRICTION ON MAKING CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 54, line 40, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 87

LIMITS ON CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE BY THIRD PARTIES

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 56, line 2, leave out—
`, in connection with relevant elections falling within section 72(1),'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 45A to 48.
Amendment No. 138, in schedule 9, page 132, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert—
`the period between the date on which Parliament is dissolved and the date of the poll for the election.'.
Government amendments Nos. 49 to 52, 54 and 55.

Mr. Tipping: Amendments Nos. 45 to 55 essentially make technical or drafting changes to chapter II of part VI. Amendment No. 45 removes an inconsistency between clause 87(1) and the general approach to controlling election expenditure taken in both parts V and VI—which proceed on the basis that it would be artificial and difficult in practice to attribute campaign expenditure between different elections occurring in close proximity to each other.
Last year's elections in Scotland are a case in point. Within a five-week period, there were local elections and elections to the Scottish and European Parliaments. Advertising by the political parties would have been devoted to achieving success at all three elections. Therefore, the approach taken in the Bill is to link expenditure controls not to specific elections, but to regulated periods ending with the date of an election.
As a consequence of that approach, a recognised third party will have to account for all controlled expenditure incurred during a regulated period, including any expenditure linked to local government elections. As drafted, clause 87(1) gives the contrary impression. The provision refers back to clause 72(1), which contains a list of elections that does not include local government elections. Amendment No. 54, therefore, tidies up the drafting in clause 87(1), so that the general approach that I have described is clearly reflected in that provision.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister gave the example of elections in close proximity. However, will he confirm that the impact of the approach is that third parties will be subject to the regulations at all times? Unless third parties happen to fall into one of the "hole" periods in which there are no such elections, with all those elections applying to them at no time could they assume that the rules would not bite upon them.

Mr. Tipping: That would depend entirely on the third parties' purposes and aims—third parties come and go. Some third parties will exist in perpetuity, and amendment No. 54 will affect them as I have just described, whereas I suspect that other third parties will be solely campaigning organisations that are established for a specific purpose or election, but subsequently dissolve.
Amendment No. 47 ensures that the expenditure limits for recognised third parties cannot be circumvented by incurring controlled expenditure during a regulated period


both as a third party and as a recognised third party. As a result of the amendment, any expenditure incurred by a third party before it became a recognised third party would count towards the relevant expenditure limit stated in schedule 9.
Amendment No. 49 flows naturally from amendment No. 47. The general restrictions relating to controlled expenditure in clauses 83 to 86 apply only to recognised third parties. It follows that a recognised third party could not comply with subsections (2) to (4) of clause 89 in respect of any controlled expenditure incurred before they became a recognised third party. The amendment disapplies those subsections in respect of any expenditure incurred during a regulated period as a third party.
Amendment No. 50 ensures that the requirement to submit a return under clause 89 in respect of controlled expenditure incurred during a regulated period continues to apply in circumstances in which a third party ceases to be a recognised third party at any time on or after the end of the regulated period. The other Government amendments in the group make minor or drafting changes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has tabled amendment No. 138, returning to an issue that he raised on Second Reading. His concern appears to be thau pressure groups and other third parties may unwittingly be caught out by the provisions of part VI, as they cannot be expected to know when the 365-day relevant period before a general election will begin. The aim of the amendment is to introduce greater certainty by confining the period during which expenditure controls will apply to the three or four weeks following the dissolution of Parliament.
Since Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead on the issue. In a letter of 8 February, my hon. Friend explained why he believed my right hon. Friend's concerns to be unfounded. For the convenience of the House, I shall try to set out briefly the positions of third parties that will follow the commencement of part VI.
Pressure groups, trade unions or other third parties that incur expenditure designed to enhance or prejudice the electoral prospects of a political party or its candidates at an election could be caught by one of two offences. First, a non-registered third party commits an offence under clause 87(3) if controlled expenditure is incurred in a regulated period in excess of one of the de minimis limits in clause 87(5), which are £10,000 in England and £5,000 in any other part of the UK. Many third parties that spend relatively small amounts will not need to become recognised, so there will be no restrictions on them. I suspect that a variety of small third party campaigns will emerge around single issues that affect neighbourhoods, groups of people or interest groups. They will want to pursue those matters vigorously. Provided that they stay below the de minimis provisions, their actions will be largely unaffected.
However, if such a group wants to spend more than those limits, they will need to become a recognised third party. To do so, they will need to submit notification to the Electoral Commission, in accordance with the provisions of clause 81. It is a simple procedure that involves no more than depositing with the commission the name and address of the organisation and the address of a person who will be responsible for complying with the

financial controls set out in part VI. Many Members expressed concern about that in Committee. They were keen to ensure that the rigorous and onerous provisions of the Bill did not impact too heavily and discourage small third parties. We all want an explosion of political involvement and activity.
Any third party that expects to incur controlled expenditure could avoid the offence in clause 87(3) by making the required notification and renewing it annually. That would make it a recognised third party, able to benefit from the higher limits on controlled expenditure set out in schedule 9.
A recognised third party could avoid the second offence of exceeding the limits on controlled expenditure imposed in schedule 9 by operating to the expenditure limit for any 365-day period. I think that that is my right hon. Friend's principal concern. A recognised third party that intends to incur significant controlled expenditure is likely to incur a sizeable proportion of it only once an election has been called and can therefore limit its expenditure accordingly. We all know from our campaigning experience that the bulk of any campaign expenditure is best spent on the final lap.
Many third parties are sophisticated political organisations that can make as educated a guess as my right hon. Friend or I about when a general election is likely to be held. We all suspect that the next general election is only 12 to 18 months away. I am not giving away any great secrets. I have no insider knowledge; it is a matter of judgment. I suspect that third parties can make the same judgments. If I can make such a guess, so can the chief executives of third parties.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister has just said something more significant than he may want to admit. By my calculation, the Government have not yet been in power for three years. If I recall correctly, the maximum statutory term of office is five years. For the Minister to reveal to a startled House that the next general election will be between 12 and 18 months away appears to limit the flexibility available to the Prime Minister in choosing the date of the election, which, by my calculation, could be held at any time within the next 25 months or so. Will the Minister clarify that?

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation as a vigorous street fighter. I said that we could make educated guesses; I have no insider knowledge. I refer him to the record if he wants to look at it. My educated guess is that the next election will be within the next 12 to 18 months. He will make his own educated guess as a seasoned street fighter who is determined to win elections. He will decide when and how to apply his efforts and financial resources. I suspect that he may not wait until 24 months from now, because he may then be too late.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead takes a great deal of interest in voluntary organisations, pressure groups and people who want to influence the political system. Third parties will be helped in a number of ways. They can ensure that they stay below the de minimis provisions. They can also use their political knowledge and guile to work out when a general election might come and contain their expenditure during the 365 days before that.
I hope that I have given my right hon. Friend some reassurance and put the issues on the record for the benefit of the many third parties which the Government are keen to involve in the political system. We need to do more to bring more freshness and vigour to the process.

7 pm

Mr. Frank Field: I wish to comment on the reasons for the amendments and the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
When I first looked at the Bill, I thought that the Government had tabled the schedule to see whether the House had the staying power to read the Bill to that point. It is difficult to understand why this part of the Bill has been drafted in this way. One reason may be that the Government are anxious that smaller groups should actively participate in any campaign—certainly big campaigns, such as a referendum on the euro—and that they should know their position and keep easily within the law. The proposal does not really deal with the big players who are interested in this debate and in the outcome of that referendum.
I wonder whether the Government are trying to get away with this part of the Bill because, above all else, they fear that the euro will spill over into the election campaign in a way that will be detrimental to the party colours that I have stood for proudly since 1966, when I fought Beaconsfield—as the Prime Minister did in his journey to the House of Commons—and in Birkenhead since 1979. I would not put much money on the Opposition winning the election on policy, but clearly if the euro becomes part of the campaign, the outcome is more open to doubt than it would otherwise be.
I tabled amendment No. 138 because I was anxious for the Government to act fairly and not find themselves before the European Court. I know that the Government want to be at the heart of Europe, but that has a different meaning if we are in the dock of the European Court to answer a case which we find difficult to answer.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has skills which lead him to be much admired in this House. He carries a lot of good will because of the way in which he conducts himself and the way in which he engages properly in argument. He does not get involved in slanging or in spin. However, even he finds it difficult to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. This part of the Bill will land the Government in difficulties.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) immediately spotted the difficulty that the Government are in, and the difficulty that all the big players will be in when they try to read the crystal ball as to whether the election timetable of 365 days has started. None of us knows when the clock will start until the Prime Minister announces the date of the election and tables the necessary resolutions to dissolve Parliament. It seems only proper that the clock should start ticking at that stage in terms of third-party expenditure. Otherwise, the Government will be charged with attempting deliberately to introduce legislation that will act retrospectively—not as this House has done previously, by overturning the established rights of people who thought that they were protected, but by saying that as

nobody bar the Prime Minister knows the date of the next election, people will unwittingly find themselves breaking a law that they would not otherwise wish to break.
I appeal to Ministers because the Government will not get away with this. Retrospective legislation is a sign of the Government running scared of the euro tunnelling into the next election campaign. The Government can stop that in all sorts of ways, but one way in which they cannot stop it is to pass this schedule of this Bill in this form. People will not know whether they are breaking the law or not. They will be able to plead before the courts—and before the European Court, if necessary—that they acted in good faith, and that their expenditure was valid.
We all know that this part of the Bill will not continue to be part of the Bill when another place has had a chance to look at it. The debate will come back to us and the Government will be faced with trying to impose their will on the House, which will result in law-abiding citizens behaving unlawfully. It is unwise for Governments to push reform to the stage that people knowingly break the law; it is even worse if people unknowingly break the law and are retrospectively held to account for their actions.
No one in the country knows the date of the general election, and I plead with Ministers to think again on this matter. If they do not, the other place will think again for them. The matter will come back to this Chamber for a vote on a crazy proposal which does not command respect in this House and could not be carried on a free vote. It will not be carried in another place, so the Government put themselves at a disadvantage with voters by behaving in this fashion.

Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a compelling speech. Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary, my amazement grew by the minute. He confidently told us about being able to predict general elections and the normal span of Parliaments. Casting my mind back, I remember that the Government of Mr. Callaghan came to an end which was not dictated by his own decision as to when to go to the country, and that Government extended for nearly five years. Closer to home, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) would not have wished his Government to go the full five years, but circumstances compelled him into that. That is another example of the impossibility of making such a prognosis.
The amendments, albeit technical, are revealing in terms of the difficulties that the Government are having in plugging the loopholes and the differences between the different schedules. Also—the Minister half-answered this point—the amendments establish an even tighter regime by introducing new categories of election to be covered, which makes it even more difficult to make any sort of guess by an organisation as to when they may fall foul of the legislation.
The essential feature of the provision is that it has nothing to do with the Neill committee, which recommended spending limits for third parties in relation to elections to prevent political parties evading the limits—as happens in the United States of America—by having parallel campaigning organisations. The Neill committee's report talks of the prevention of large-scale propaganda that was clearly intended either to promote the election of one party or to discourage the election of another. In the immediate period of an election, that is


sensible and enjoys the support of the Opposition, and—from what he said—the support of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.
However, the Neill committee contained nothing about a specified time for which spending limits would apply. Indeed, the report stated:
There would be considerable practical difficulties in imposing annual spending limits.
Indeed there would. One could not imagine a greater fetter on the freedom of people or organisations to spend their money as they wished or to communicate with others. That right is enshrined in the European convention on human rights, which we have just taken into our law. I hope that the Minister will give me credit for supporting that, despite the difficulties when it came before the House.
The Government have gone well beyond what Neill recommended. With the 365-day principle, they have introduced a level of control that would apply not only to political parties but to groups of
candidates who hold … particular opinions.
The provision would affect a campaign that was run six months before an election advising people to vote Labour or Conservative, and it would also affect a campaign being run to persuade people to vote, for example, for candidates who were pro-life, or pro-abortion. That would fall foul of the 365-day period. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, that is the entire year before the election.
We have co-operated a lot on this Bill, but this provision is either barmy or malevolent. I am still prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt that it has been inserted barmily, in a belief that the time limit needs to extend beyond the immediate election period, and then taken too far.
The schedule would introduce spending limits at all times on campaigning organisations. In those circumstances, what would be the practical consequences? Well, unless campaigning organisations will lie down, terrorised, and give up campaigning, they will go ahead and campaign. Many of them will hit an election having grossly exceeded the limits prescribed. However, the Government cannot stop the organisations spending in that time, so—as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out—when the election arrives, the organisations will have committed a criminal offence. I am not sure what a jury, still less the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords or the European Court of Human Rights, will make of that offence. The Government will end up with egg on their face, and so will the House, for having passed legislation that is manifestly absurd and unfair.
The Government should consider the matter sensibly. They should impose restrictions for the period of a general election, but they should simply live with the fact that they cannot prevent people, outside local or general election periods, from promoting a political viewpoint that may include support for a political party or for groups of MPs who may hold particular views.
The Bill was meant to tackle party spending. It was meant to prevent corruption. It was not, as I am sure the Minister would agree, supposed to impose draconian restrictions on campaigning organisations. Amendment No. 138 would not remove controls on third-party spending altogether, but it would go a long way towards

remedying what is wrong with the Bill. It is greatly to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman that he has brought the matter before the House on Report.

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman said that the amendment goes only part of the way. What sort of amendment would he have preferred? Only when we have the dissolution order before Parliament do we know the date of the general election.

Mr. Grieve: I expressed myself badly. The Opposition felt disquiet initially when we considered whether restrictions on third-party expenditure were justifiable. In a spirit of supportiveness, and an understanding of what the Bill is trying to achieve and what Lord Neill recommended, we have put that disquiet to one side. That is one of the reasons why the Bill has progressed with enormous cross-party co-operation. We have made it clear several times that we are prepared to implement Lord Neill's recommendations, even when we can see that there will be practical difficulties. I simply wished to make the point that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment will not get rid of control over third parties, but he has undoubtedly identified the best way of bringing it back within the bounds of reasonableness.
I hope that the Government will give amendment No. 138 some serious thought, coming as it does from a distinguished Labour Back Bencher. We do not wish to depart from the spirit of sensible inquiry that has dominated proceedings on the Bill, and that is greatly to the credit of the Minister. However, the problem will not go away. I would be staggered if the other place failed to point out that the provision fails to comply with basic human rights. If it comes back to this House and has not been properly dealt with, or the Government have not agreed to think again, I foresee that it will not pass without argument. I would prefer to see the consensus that we have achieved hitherto being maintained and I hope that the Government will think again.
I considered whether it was possible to define a period other than the election period itself. However, as I am sure the Minister will agree, another period cannot work. The only sensible limit is the election period.

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for their comments. We have listened to all the comments made during the Bill's progress. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that, if the Bill could be improved, it would be improved and, if consensus could be found, we would try to find a way forward. That has so far happened.
At times during the speech by the hon. Gentleman, I wondered whether he had moved away from a commitment to spending controls on third parties but, as he developed his theme, he made it clear that he was not against the principle. However, he thought that there would be practical difficulties. I remind him that a central tenet of the Bill is to put financial controls on political parties, which Neill advocated.
Neill also advocated that third parties should be allowed to spend 5 per cent., say, of what political parties spend. That can be judged only against a timetable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead advocates a much shorter timetable, but that is a matter of judgment.
We must remember that organisations such as pro-life or environmental groups undertake normal and legitimate campaigning activities. Society benefits from such activities and I hope that we see more of them. They would contravene the Bill only when it became clear that they were trying to influence the outcome of an election. We are not trying to stymie campaign groups—heaven forbid. We want them to do a lot more, and there is a lot of energy to be harnessed. However, when it comes to influencing election outcomes, spending controls should apply to such groups.
I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield agrees with that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead does. The important question is how such controls are set against the timetable.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister seems to miss the point. I accept that many organisations will campaign in so general a way that their activities could not be considered relevant to an election. However, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, one can envisage campaigns on a subject such as the euro that might suggest that belief in the euro was incompatible with belonging to the Conservative party or voting Conservative, and that non-belief in the euro was incompatible with belonging to, or voting, Labour. Such campaigns must fall foul of the Bill if an election were to be called unexpectedly after expenditure had been incurred.

Mr. Tipping: I did not miss the point. I was trying to explain it, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman grasped what I was saying so quickly shows that I was going in the right direction.
A range of campaign groups' activities will not be covered by the Bill, but it is right to say that those activities that attempt to influence an election will be restricted by the proposals. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is keen to ensure that the regulations are not too onerous and that they do not put people off political campaigns.
I am grateful for the generous, but I think unwarranted, comments from my right hon. Friend, and I feared that the word "but" was on its way. However, I emphasise that I do not want the regulations to be onerous or off-putting. The Bill contains a series of measures that affect larger organisations more than smaller ones. It is framework legislation that covers all sorts of elections—to the European Parliament, for example, or for seats in Scotland and Wales. It is not confined to referendums, nor is it designed around an election in connection with the euro. It contains a series of steps to regulate third-party campaign spending.
Those of us who are involved in political activity, in the mainstream or around the fringes, can make educated guesses about when general elections will be held. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made the point that the Prime Minister of the day has an advantage.

Mr. Grieve: That is a major concession.

Mr. Tipping: It is not a major concession. It is a matter of fact. I can see the hon. Member for South Staffordshire

(Sir P. Cormack) laughing, but tables turn and electoral cycles change. What is one party's interest now may not be so in the future.
We believe that the Bill can be improved, and it has been improved already. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said about attitudes in the House of Lords. We will look at tonight's debate and take account of the comments made down the road. However, we must have a system that recognises the principle of restricting third-party spending. We must also try to ensure that it is not too onerous—an objective that I am sure unites the House.
The 365-day provision in the Bill is workable, and the Government are on the right track. We have listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, as we will listen to what is said in another place. I understand that my right hon. Friend is warning me, but I hope that he will accept what I have said and withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I also have a Beaconsfield connection, like the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), although one of us was a more successful candidate than the others.
I have a specific question for the Minister. I understand that the regulation to which he referred does not apply to publishers of newspapers. Will he say what would happen if a major campaign organisation—with a platform in favour of the euro, for example, or against abortion—decided to publish a newspaper during the regulated period? Would that expenditure be controlled by the Bill?

Mr. Tipping: I am interested in the history of success and failure in Beaconsfield. Clearly, a lot of unsuccessful campaigning has gone on there. If the newspaper described by the hon. Gentleman were published by a third-party organisation, it would be counted as campaign expenditure, in the true sense of the phrase.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister really mean what he just said? If Mr. Paul Sykes decided to buy a newspaper, which he filled with news about matters other than just the euro, would that be considered to be an election expense under the Bill?

Mr. Tipping: If Mr. Paul Sykes or anyone else purchased a regular newspaper, in which he ran articles and features designed to influence the process and outcome of an election, that would clearly be campaign expenditure. However, if he bought The Daily Telegraph, for example, and that newspaper carried on promoting a variety of causes with a focus that went beyond the election—even if most of those promotions were against the Labour party—that would not be counted as an election expense. A balance has to be struck, and at some point a judgment has to be made.
I can tell the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that it is hard to speak about hypothetical examples. These matters deserve careful judgment, but I repeat: material designed to influence elections will be considered to be campaign material, whereas traditional newspapers will not.

Sir Patrick Cormack: There is a saying, "If you're in a hole, stop digging." The hon. Gentleman seems to be giving a great many hostages to fortune. Does he really mean to move his Government towards press censorship? The hon. Gentleman may shake his head. He is an immensely amiable character, and we all love him dearly, but he has said some extraordinary things, and this must be sorted out.

Mr. Tipping: Let me be absolutely clear about this. If Mr. Paul Sykes buys The Daily Telegraph or any other newspaper and campaigns on the euro or whatever, that is clearly not an election expense. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has in mind a group producing a regular newspaper, locally focused, over a regular period of time, which is designed entirely and primarily to influence the election, clearly it is an election expense. I read the Liberal Democrats' Focus, although I do not rate it very highly. It is a regular newspaper that campaigns and tries to influence the election. It is clearly an election expense and if the hon. Gentleman has not been declaring it, I will have to take a close look round North Cornwall.
Now that I have cleared up this issue, let me say, for the third time, that I have heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has said. He has heard the Government's position, and we will of course follow the debate.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Tipping: No.

Mr. Field: My comments about my hon. Friend were made without any reservation, without any ifs or buts. My views are, I think, widely shared in all parts of the House, and we are grateful that my hon. Friend treats us in a serious manner in all our debates. I wish that others would follow that role model.
The point of tabling the amendment was in the hope that the Government would accept it. My hon. Friend has, to put it politely, been drowning as he has tried to reply to it. As he is not accepting it, this part of the Bill—this piece of nonsense—staggers on stilts to the other place. I look forward to seeing what the other place will do with it. I am sure that we will then return to the debate in this place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. It just means that he does not have to move it when we come to that part of the amendment paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 45A, in page 56, line 21, leave out 'relevant'.

No. 46, in page 56, line 38, leave out—
`section and sections 89 and 90'
and insert "Chapter".

No. 47, in page 56, line 40, after "9;", insert—
`(aa) any reference to controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party during a regulated period includes any controlled expenditure so incurred during that period at any time before the third party became a recognised third party;'.

No. 48, in page 56, leave out line 43 and insert—
'is incurred in that part; and
(c) any reference to controlled expenditure being incurred in a part of the United Kingdom shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Schedule.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 10

CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO RECOGNISED THIRD PARTIES

Amendments made: No. 105, in page 140, line 5, leave out—
', in his capacity as such, shall be regarded as a'

and insert—
'of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the recognised third party—

(a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the recognised third party, is a permissible donor falling within section 48(2), or
(b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),

shall be regarded as a relevant'.

No. 106, in page 140, line 6, leave out—
'a permissible donor falling with section 48(2)'

and insert "such a permissible donor".

No. 107, in page 140, line 37, at end insert—
`recognised third party and any'.

No. 108, in page 140, line 38, at end insert "registered party and any".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 89

RETURNS AS TO CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 57, line 42, at end insert—
`(4A) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply to any controlled expenditure incurred at any time during the regulated period before the third party became a recognised third party, but the return must be accompanied by a declaration made by the responsible person of the total amount of such expenditure incurred at any such time.'.

No. 50, in page 57, line 44, at end insert—
'(5A) Where subsection (1)(a) applies in relation to a recognised third party and any regulated period—

(a) the requirements as to the preparation of a return under this section in respect of controlled expenditure falling within subsection (1)(a) shall have effect in relation to the third party despite the third party ceasing to be a recognised third party at or after the end of the regulated period by virtue of the lapse of the third party's notification under section 81(1); and
(b) for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge of obligations of the responsible person under this section and sections 91 and 92 in relation to any such return, references to the responsible person shall be read as references to the person who was the responsible person in relation to the third party immediately before that notification lapsed.'.

No. 51, in page 58, line 2, leave out—
`; and section 87(6) applies for the purposes of this section'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 90

AUDITOR'S REPORT ON RETURN

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 58, leave out line 15.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 91

SUBMISSION OF RETURNS TO THE COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 58, line 34, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 92

DECLARATION BY RESPONSIBLE PERSON AS TO RETURN UNDER SECTION 89

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 58, line 42, after "party", insert "during a regulated period".

No. 55, in page 59, line 8, leave out "relevant campaign" and insert "regulated".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 93

PUBLIC INSPECTION OF RETURNS UNDER SECTION 89

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 59, line 31, at end insert—
`(1 A) If the return contains a statement of relevant donations in accordance with section 89(2)(d), the Commission shall secure that the copy of the statement made available for public inspection does not include, in the case of any donation by an individual, the donor's address.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 97

DATE OF POLL

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 61, line 33, after "referendum", insert—
'to which this Part applies'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 98

PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 62, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert—
'(b) any of the following by whom a notification has been given under section 99 in relation to the referendum, namely—

(i) any individual,
(ii) any company falling within section 48(2)(b), and
(iii) any unincorporated association of such a description as is mentioned in section 48(2)(f).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 59 to 63.

Mr. O'Brien: Amendment No. 58 responds to concerns that were raised in Committee about the existing definition of a permitted participant. It was noted that the current definition in clause 98 did not appear to prevent foreign companies and associations from participating in a referendum campaign. It was argued that that seemed to be at odds with the proposed ban on foreign donations.
Concerns were also voiced about the broad nature of the regulation-making power in clause 98(1). The intended purpose of the power had been to enable the Secretary of State to restrict the ability of foreign companies and unincorporated associations to campaign in referendums to which part VII applies. We accept, however, that as drafted, the regulation-making power is very widely drawn, and it would be preferable to set out in the Bill the restrictions that we have in mind.
The effect of the amendment is that a permitted participant in a referendum campaign must be either an individual, a European Union-incorporated company that is carrying on business in the United Kingdom, or an unincorporated association that carries on its business or activities wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom and has its main office here. Such unincorporated associations may include trade unions.
The amended definition does not prevent an individual who is not a United Kingdom-registered voter from being a permitted participant. It is the Government's view that to restrict the ability of individuals, whether or not they are entitled to vote, to express and promote their own opinions, as opposed to financially supporting a campaign would be an undue restriction on their freedom of speech.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 59 to 63 is to ensure that the register of permitted participants, which is maintained by the Electoral Commission for the duration of a referendum campaign, is kept up to date. Under clause 96, a referendum period can last for up to six months. It is quite conceivable that in that time a permitted participant may move offices or appoint a new "responsible person". Clearly, where that happens, there should be a duty on the permitted participant to notify the Electoral Commission of any relevant changes. Amendment No. 59 is directed to that end. On receipt of a notification of a change to a permitted participant's registration details, amendment No. 62 requires the Electoral Commission merely to update the register of permitted participants. The other three amendments make consequential drafting changes to clause 100.
Again, I hope that this is an indication that throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, we have listened carefully to the arguments and are prepared to move when we are convinced that they have relevance.

Mr. Walter: I am grateful to the Government for responding to some of the points that we made in Committee on this issue, and for tightening up the provisions that relate to companies and unincorporated associations. Of course, as the Minister pointed out, it is still possible for a company registered in this country but incorporated elsewhere in the European Union to be a permitted participant in a referendum campaign.
The amendments do nothing to remove the provision for a permitted participant to be a foreign national, to visit this country—as I mentioned when we were discussing third parties—and to spend £500,000 on furthering his political views in a referendum campaign. If a group of individuals did that, they could have a significant impact on the referendum campaign. We are still very unhappy with the way in which the clause is drafted, as we are with the way in which the clause on third parties is drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 99

DECLARATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 98

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 63, line 5, at end insert—
'(4A) If at any time before the end of the compliance period any of the statements which, in accordance with any provision of subsection (4), are contained in a notification under this section (as it has effect for the time being) ceases to be accurate, the permitted participant by whom the notification was given shall give the Commission a notification ("a notification of alteration") indicating that that statement is replaced by some other statement—

(a) contained in the notification of alteration, and
(b) conforming with that provision of subsection (4).

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) "the compliance period" is the period during which any provisions of Chapter II remain to be complied with on the part of the permitted participant.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 100

REGISTER OF DECLARATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 98

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 63, line 16, leave out subsection (3).

No. 61, in page 63, line 19, after "cause", insert—
(a)".

No. 62, in page 63, line 20, after "register", insert ", or
(b) in the case of a notification under section 99(4A), any change required as a consequence of the notification to be made in the register,'.

No. 63, in page 63, line 21, at end insert—
'(5) The information to be entered in the register in respect of a permitted participant who is an individual shall, however, not include his home address.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 11

ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO DESIGNATED ORGANISATIONS

Amendment made: No. 109, in page 144, line 19, leave out from "organisations," to end of line 21.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 104

REFERENDUM EXPENSES

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 65, line 13, after "referendum", insert—
`to which this Part applies'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 12

REFERENDUM EXPENSES: QUALIFYING EXPENSES

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 146, leave out lines 5 to 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 182, in page 69, line 11, leave out Clause 111.

Amendment No. 151, in page 148, line 25, leave out Schedule 13.
Amendment No. 146, in page 75, line 17, leave out Clause 122.
Government amendment No. 82.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall deal first with the Government amendments and then turn to those tabled by the Opposition.
When we considered schedule 12 as a Committee of the whole House, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) suggested that sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) in paragraph 2 looked out of place. We considered that matter and we agree: schedule 12 is almost the mirror image of schedule 7. Although the exclusions to which the sub-paragraphs relate are appropriate in the context of election campaign expenditure—for example in a general election—they do not fit the circumstances of referendum campaigns. He pointed that out, and we were happy to table amendment No. 110, which would remove those two sub-paragraphs. I hope that it will command the broad support of the House.
I will take the remaining amendments in the group in reverse order. Government amendment No. 82 amends clause 144 so as to add to the list of delegated powers that are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure the order-making power in clause 122. Amendment No. 182, tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and his colleagues, takes a more drastic approach: it would delete the whole clause and with it the order-making power.
The House will recall that clause 122 was added to the Bill in Committee. It is fair to say that the new clause generated some heat at the end of proceedings on 16 February. It may be as well, therefore, for me to take this opportunity to say a little more about the order-making power set out in the clause.
The purpose of the clause is to enable the Secretary of State to make provision for the conduct of a referendum to which part VII applies. Although, in accordance with precedent, the clause uses the word "conduct", it is in fact concerned with the administration of a referendum—the nuts and bolts of the polling arrangements. An order made under clause 122 may be expected to do no more than apply to a referendum the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Acts and regulations. An order would thus be concerned with such matters as postal voting, the provision of polling stations, the issue of polling cards and the hours of polling. Those are important but none the less administrative matters, which can sensibly be left to subordinate legislation.
As was pointed out in Committee, there are several precedents for this order-making power, including legislation passed by previous Conservative Administrations—namely the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972. Other precedents include the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland Act 1978, the Wales Act 1978 and, more recently, the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The arrangements for the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales also derive from subordinate legislation made under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.
I hope that the House will be reassured that we are creating nothing sinister—nothing that may give the Secretary of State power mendaciously to influence the outcome of a referendum campaign. The provision is simply concerned with the mere mechanics of a referendum poll. I point out to the right hon. Member for


North-West Hampshire that, if any legal dispute should arise, Pepper v. Hart will apply. No doubt he has had a chance to look it up overnight.
It is appropriate that such an order should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I therefore commend amendment No. 82 to the House.
7.45 pm
I turn now to amendments Nos. 182 and 151. It is true that, in its original report, the Neill committee recommended against spending limits in referendum campaigns. Both in the report and in their comments on the draft Bill, members of the committee made it clear that its difficulty with spending limits was based not so much on principle, but on practical grounds. We have rehearsed that argument, so I shall not go into it at great length. The committee had particularly in mind the transient nature of some referendum campaign organisations.
The Government are not persuaded that the practical difficulties are too great. The Neill committee had already recommended that referendum campaign organisations—not merely those in receipt of public funds, but any that intended to spend more than the de minimis limit—should register with the Electoral Commission. That requirement provides in itself much of the control machinery needed for the imposition of expenditure limits. There is no reason why it should be more difficult, practically and technically, to impose spending limits in referendum campaigns than it is to impose them in constituency election contests or—perhaps I dare say it—campaigns to be mayor of London.
As to the principle, the Government take the view that it is every bit as desirable to prevent a referendum campaign from being skewed by the amount of money at the disposal of particular participants as it would be in a general election campaign.
The official Opposition have not really answered that point. There has been much huffing and puffing, but no clear statement as to why they oppose expenditure controls. One of their arguments is that Neill did not recommend them; another is that they would be difficult to organise. However, that does not go to the nub of the issue: why—if it were possible to do so—do the Opposition believe that we should get involved in some form of arms race over who can spend the most in a referendum campaign? That is undesirable. The point is to allow people to choose; it is not about who can spend the most on putting out propaganda. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) remarked in Committee, the Conservatives seem to confuse expenditure controls with the amounts available to parties and other organisations.
The serious point, which cannot be gainsaid, is that expenditure controls on parties and organisations cannot be relied on to ensure that the same amount is spent by both sides in a referendum campaign. We have been over that ground on previous occasions. As no scheme has been suggested to achieve that result, it is common ground in the House that it would not be practicable. However, that does not dispose of the case for expenditure controls with more limited objectives and, possibly, more modest results.
We have consistently kept an open mind on the detail of the scheme—especially the figures in schedule 13. We adjusted the limits for political parties, and the basis for such limits, in response to the comments of the Neill committee on the draft Bill. We have continued to invite Opposition Members to tell us if they think that the figures should be further varied.
The official Opposition have consistently declined to make any suggestions; they simply say that they want no limits at all. They are not prepared to enter serious discussions on how we can ensure that people have a choice that is not skewed by an arms race for who can spend the most. Their only reply to our request to enter that debate is that it is all too difficult. Obviously, we shall vote on whether there should be expenditure controls. However, if there is to be a scheme—as we say there should be—the detail is as right as we could fairly and reasonably make it.
We continue to think that it is only realistic to regard the larger political parties as likely to want to participate in a referendum campaign, and that the spending limits should reflect the electoral support they enjoy. However, the Bill does not require a party to participate in a campaign; for example, a party may not do so because it is split or for other reasons.
We have tried to take a principled view; it is right to have expenditure controls, but we do not want an arms race during a referendum campaign. We invited the Conservatives to join us in supporting that view and to discuss how it might be applied. However, they seem to reject the principle altogether. I regret that. If we really care about democracy and the way in which a referendum campaign is conducted, we should try to ensure that there is a reasonably fair playing field. We want to ensure a rough balance—it could never be perfect—so that the people who decide the outcome of the referendum can make up their minds, exercise their judgment and come to a conclusion based on a fair and reasonably balanced presentation of the evidence.
That is how we intend to progress. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Conservatives will join us.

Sir George Young: Before I move to the more substantive issues, I wish to press the Minister about Government amendment No. 110. It applies to the exclusion on direct expenses in schedule 12. He pointed out that paragraph 2 of schedule 12 bears a remarkable similarity to paragraph 2 of schedule 7, which is about exclusions on direct expenses in an election. He pointed out that that was not entirely appropriate, particularly because paragraph 2 of schedule 7 refers to expenses in respect of giving electors information about
their elected representatives or existing or prospective candidates.
He made the point that, although that provision was appropriate for a general election, it was obviously not appropriate for a referendum.
Government amendment No. 110. goes slightly further. It will delete paragraph 2(b) of schedule 12. That means that any expenses incurred in sending unsolicited material to supporters of a referendum campaign will no longer be excluded. However, it seems to me that, under the provisions of paragraph 2(b) of schedule 7, identical expenditure seems to be excluded, because it refers to
any expenses incurred in respect of unsolicited material addressed to party members.


It is not immediately clear why it is right to exclude the expenses when one sends unsolicited material to party members, but include them when one sends unsolicited material to supporters of a referendum campaign.
The Minister may be able to tell us why he wants to delete paragraph 2(b) of schedule 12, and I have no argument about knocking out sub-paragraph (a). However, the reasons for the Government's approach are not immediately clear.
The debate revisits familiar territory, but it would be wrong to let Report stage pass without reference to the most fundamental divergence from the recommendations of the Neill committee. At an appropriate time, the Opposition hope to move formally amendments Nos. 182 and 146 and take the temperature of the House on these constitutional issues. I shall talk to amendments Nos. 182 and 151 and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) wishes to talk to amendment No. 146.
The Minister and the House know our views, which I set out in Committee on 16 February when I was ably assisted by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I do not want to repeat that case, but I want to advance the argument by considering the two principal reasons given by the Minister when he resisted our amendment. First, he argued that
if, as we have agreed, it is right and practical to control spending at major general elections, it is right and practical to control spending in referendum campaigns.
I leave unanswered the question about what might be a minor general election.
I want to address the key argument that the Minister has used time and again, and which he has repeated this evening. He argues that if one can cap spending at a general election, one can cap spending in a referendum. That argument was demolished by Lord Neill, and nothing that the Minister has said in the two months since Second Reading has addressed the fundamental point that Lord Neill made. He considered the Government's case and rejected it in paragraphs 12.20 to 12.22 of his report.
Referendum campaigns are not, as the Minister tells us time and again, the same as general election campaigns. Everyone in the House knows that they are different. In a referendum, we are not choosing a Government, the parties may be split and other organisations are involved. In paragraph 12.30 of his report, Lord Neill concluded:
To represent referendum campaigns as merely another manifestation of the usual party political battle seems to us both misconceived in principle and false to the history of referendums since 1975.
We have heard that case repeated this evening, without Lord Neill's objection being addressed. The Government's case for limits is based on that false premise.
At no time have the Government begun to answer a related question. Why should one base what might be spent in a referendum campaign on, for example, proportional representation for Westminster on how many votes the Labour party received at a general election in which it was neutral on the issue of proportional representation? Trying to base referendum spending limits on votes at the previous general election has no argument of principle whatever to sustain it, and nor has the Minister advanced any.
As we have heard in many debates today and in Committee, the limits are shot to shreds by loopholes. Foreign residents can take space in newspaper

advertisements without restrictions thanks to the European convention on human rights. The 24 trade unions that are affiliated to the Labour party can each spend £500,000, lifting the Labour party limit from £5 million to £17 million at a stroke. As we have just heard, one can buy a newspaper—as long as it is the right newspaper—without the limits applying. The argument that one can cap spending in a referendum campaign in the same way that one can cap spending in a general election campaign simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
The Minister's second argument was that our amendments were a Conservative ploy—a devious attempt by my party somehow to secure advantage. We propose what the Neill committee proposed unanimously. The rules that we want are those that the Government have already applied themselves. The Minister said:
We believe that it is simply undesirable to have referendums bought by those who are able to pay the largest sums.—[Official Report, 16 February 2000: Vol. 344, c. 1038-39.]
However, all that he is doing is substituting that undesirability with another one. Referendums will be bought by those who are allowed to pay the largest sum. We have explained time and again how, in a referendum on the euro, the scales might be tipped in favour of one side.
The Home Secretary defended those limits by saying that the Liberal Democrats would not be able to spend up to that limit. That is not a powerful argument, not least because, under the Bill, the Labour party could, if it wanted to, give the Liberal Democrats the money to support a campaign for the euro.

Mr. Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman's scenario is improbable. Should he be successful in deleting clause 111, the Labour party could send us an even bigger cheque.

Sir George Young: I am not sure of the logic of that suggestion. However, I am disappointed that the Conservative party does not feature in any way in that important financial transaction. Perhaps we could receive a commission for facilitating such a transaction between the two main parties.

Mr. Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman is at least right about the two main parties. The point that I did not make more explicit—I apologise for that—is that all the things that he has described could happen several times over in a regime with no limits. The restrictions provide some limitation.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has to address at some point the recommendations of the Neill committee and why it unanimously came to the conclusion that it was impractical to impose limits on referendum campaigns. Although I noticed on the previous occasion we debated this issue that the Liberal Democrats supported the Government, I hope that they will consider the arguments that Neill advanced and the criticisms of the Government's proposal. Perhaps, in another place, they will have second thoughts.
I regret that the Government will not see reason on our suggestion. The scheme that they are persisting with is based on a flawed policy. It has no basis in principle and


it will be impossible to implement in practice. At the appropriate time, I shall invite my hon. Friends to express that view in the Lobby.

Mr. Stunell: Three separate issues have come to the fore, and I shall comment briefly on each of them.
I, too, would like to hear from the Minister about the detail of the practical effect of Government amendment No. 110. As I understand it, in the first formulation, leaflets distributed during a campaign are exempt because they will be included elsewhere in the election expenses of individual campaigns. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. In a referendum, where there is not an individual campaign as such, those leaflets will be included in the global figure.
8 pm
If that is the basis on which we are proceeding, that is fine, but there is potentially a category that is exempted in the first case and now will not be exempted in the second case. I refer to wider campaign literature that does not specifically advocate the case of particular candidates. I seek clarification on that point.
We debated expenditure limits in a Committee of the whole House, and I thought that the intellectual case made by several Conservative spokesmen did not stand the test of the debate, and the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) as good as conceded the case. The argument is straightforward: the rules and procedures set out in the Bill mean that each political party has a ceiling on the contribution that it can make to a referendum campaign. That ceiling is effectively £5 million each for the Conservative and Labour parties, a lesser amount for the Liberal Democrats, and £500,000 for any other party with representation in this House.
If one took the gloomiest view from the Conservatives' perspective, which is that every other party in the House was opposed to the Conservatives' case in a referendum on proportional representation or the euro—they are on the losing side of those arguments, in their perception at least—and spent up to its limit, the total ceiling would be under £20 million. If there were no financial limits and every party in the House other than the Conservatives chose to invest in a referendum campaign the amount that the Conservatives invested in the general election, they would spend some £260 million.
The Conservatives' choice is between no limits, which may mean that some £300 million or even £400 million is spent, or spending that is regulated, however inadequately in their view, which would mean that the disadvantage suffered by them or by minority parties in a referendum campaign—I do not necessarily mean political parties—would not be so great.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) suggested that perhaps I had not addressed the intellectual case set out in the Neill report. I put it to him that he has not addressed the intellectual case of the sheer mathematics of the Bill's provisions, as opposed to the alternative of having no limits at all.
Having no spending limits would mean no constraints on the spending of the parties, and therefore on the side of the argument with the biggest and deepest pockets.
Sometimes that will suit cases that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to advocate, sometimes it will suit those that I want to advocate, and there may be occasions when we are on the same side, but that is not the best way to reach decisions in a democracy. While we are introducing a formal process for the general regulation of referendums, we should introduce financial controls as well.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in a referendum the party with the deepest pockets will always be the Government? We saw in the Welsh referendum the extent to which the Government were able to use all their agencies of publicity to put across their case.

Mr. Stunell: That might be generally true, but there is every indication that in a referendum on the euro, both sides of the argument would have supporters in the UK with very deep pockets, and I would not like to match my personal bank account against that of Mr. Sykes. Time will tell which side of the argument has the money. If we have no financial regulation, and if the hon. Gentleman's point is correct, the Government of the day will be in a position to win every referendum simply because they have the deepest pockets, so I should have thought that his point was an argument in favour of spending limits to level the playing field for the small guys putting a minority view.
We shall support the retention of clause 111. We believe that there should be spending limits. The reasoning used by the Conservatives in Committee was flawed, and they are making a mistake in using it now.
I deal now with clause 122 and the powers of the Secretary of State. We were concerned about those powers when they were imported into the Bill. We had some reassurance from the Minister about their limited nature and the fact that they will be tempered with mercy, so we do not need to worry about them. That is fine, but I want to hear a good deal more from the Minister about precisely how those powers are being circumscribed.
I repeat that we are making legislation that history suggests will last for a long time. The last thorough overhaul of such legislation was in 1883—117 years ago. We are putting in place the foundations of legislation, particularly on referendums, which may not be revisited for a long time. Certainly the legislation will outlast the ministerial lifetime of the present Secretary of State and probably of several Secretaries of State after that. [Interruption.] Well, the Home Secretary may remain in post for 117 years, but that would be an unusual record.
We have to understand that the rules and regulations that we are introducing may have to be effective in more adverse circumstances than the present ones. When we give the Secretary of State powers relating to elections and referendums, we have to be absolutely sure that the possibility of undue influence or decision making by him is minimised, and although we have had some reassurance today, we remain to be convinced that that is the case.

Mr. John Hayes: I was inspired to contribute to the debate principally by the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I imagine that he does not often inspire contributions of any sort, so I say that with generosity.
There was a lot of talk about intellectualism in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but little evidence of it. He misunderstands the fundamental difference between limits on expenditure per se and limits on the expenditure of those who are permitted to contribute to or to fund campaigns. That lies at the heart of the amendments and of the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). To argue that any restriction or practice is better than none is not a satisfactory way to address our concerns.
I want to make only two substantial points. The first is that it is not good enough simply to disregard the work that the Neill committee did on this matter. The committee was strong and unanimous in its view and it contradicted the position that has been adopted by the Government. The Minister will remember that Neill was particularly critical of the conduct of the Northern Ireland referendum. I make no judgment on the subject that was being debated in Northern Ireland, but Neill made specific and rather critical comment about that, about expenditure in that referendum campaign, and about the Government's whip hand in the conduct of that campaign.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Northern Ireland referendum was somewhat different. We are discussing whether there should be expenditure restraints on the various campaign organisations and political parties in a national referendum, where the Government, at least for a time, are excluded.
The Neill committee did not think that that was doable. We say that it is, and we will do it. We paid attention to the Neill argument. Now, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman should pay attention. Let him address the doability argument. That is the only objection that Neill had. There was no objection in principle, as I understand it.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister is right—the Neill committee criticised the practicality of the measure. My right hon. Friend drew attention to that in his remarks. I was making a different point.
My second substantial point is that referendums are fundamentally different from general elections. The public expectations and perceptions of referendum campaigns and the spending in referendum campaigns is, to some extent, prejudiced. In other words, there is a widespread view that Governments do not lose referendums. That does not apply to general elections.
People assume that general elections are likely to be run and financed on a fair and free basis. I suspect that that is not the public expectation and perception of referendums in general. I mentioned Northern Ireland because it illustrates the fact that there is already—I will not say "a presumption of guilt", as that would be going too far—some misapprehension on the part of the public about the conduct and funding of referendum campaigns.

Mr. George Stevenson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened to the debate for many hours, and I am interested in his argument. Does he accept that referendums can fundamentally alter a Government's policy and in some circumstances bring a Government down? Why does he persist in arguing that there is no comparison between referendums and general elections in that sense?

Mr. Hayes: I would not say that there was no comparison. They are comparable in that sense, as they

may affect the political direction of a Government or a country. Referendums are different from a general election not just in scale, which is clearly a factor, as the scale of a referendum campaign is considerably greater, but in the public expectation and perception of their conduct and nature.
I was being rather complimentary about our democracy. Most people think that the way in which we conduct our general elections and the way the principal political parties conduct themselves in the context of general elections is, for the most part, fair, free and honourable. There is the odd exception, but in essence that would be a tenable position to adopt.
I do not take the same view of referendums. As we already see in press comment and surveys of opinion, people expect referendums not to be conducted in the same free and fair way. We therefore have an extra duty to counteract that and to anticipate those objections by ensuring that the legislation is—to paraphrase the hon. Member for Hazel Grove—fit for the long-term future, if referendums are to play an increasing role in the way we govern our country. That is why I strongly support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I join the debate on this group of amendments because I spoke on the clause when we discussed it in the early hours of the evening of 16 February in Committee on the Floor of the House. I shall highlight those points again, with good reason—not for the sake of duplication, but because, as is acknowledged throughout the House, clause 111 goes to the heart of fairness in referendums. We all recognise that if the Bill is to be effective, it must increase, not diminish, the democratic legitimacy of referendums.
At the time, I queried how one would manage the suspension of expenditure in local political parties so that that was not computed within the overall limits on expenditure under the rules imposed by the Bill. That was not apparent from the Bill. It is also not clear from the Bill what would happen if a referendum were held on the same day as a general election. In the absence of provision in the Bill, confusion seems to abound.
That was not a facile point. I had been led to that expectation by no less a person than the Prime Minister, who, early in the course of this Administration, perhaps in order to duck the prevailing lack of enthusiasm for the single currency in the country, suggested that it might be better to have a referendum on the same day as a general election to disguise the issue.
The debate proceeded, and the Minister was exceptionally generous in his reply. Not sparing my blushes, referring to my speech the Minister said:
He made a very good speech and raised some forensic points, which deserve much consideration. I should like to consider at greater length some of the finer aspects of the issues that he raised and perhaps write to him on some of them.
After dealing with a further point, the Minister continued:
I should like to consider further some of the hon. Gentleman's points, which may deserve some closer thought… They suggest that he is right: if that happens, perhaps we will need further legislation to clarify some of the issues."—[Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1037-38.]
The Minister then went on in characteristically generous vein.
I have received no letter from the Minister on any of those points, which I think are valid and important and go to the heart of the clause. I ask the Minister to reflect carefully whether our amendments are right, and whether the clause should be removed from the Bill until the issues that are fundamental to the fairness of referendums and democratic legitimacy have been addressed.

Mr. Paterson: Following my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I shall make a brief contribution and clarify my point.
If there are artificial limits as set out in schedule 13, the whip hand is the Government's. A recent example, which affected people near my constituency, was the Welsh referendum, in which there was a staggering increase in expenditure by the Welsh Office on what is called "extra publicity".
The figures are simple. Total publicity spending by the Welsh Office since May 1997 was £5,285,750. Of that, the amount spent on extra publicity was an incredible £2,724,812.5. The rest of that sum, which is slightly less than half, went on opinion poll research, media advertising, direct mail publicity, press releases and websites.
That shows that if an artificial limit is imposed through schedule 13, those who do not support the Government's cause will be capped. The Government will have access to all the tricks that we witnessed in the Welsh referendum. They will be able to dip into the public purse. Effectively, unlimited spending will be available to finance the Government's cause. That is wrong, which is why I strongly support amendment No. 151.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—what a wonderful constituency name that is—and my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made short but pithy speeches which were extremely convincing. It would be remiss of the Under-Secretary not to take account of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire made. The result of the Welsh referendum was desperately close. Those of us who watched with increasing amazement the extraordinary development of the Welsh Assembly and its dramatis personae, and who remember that the flimsiest majority landed us with that Assembly, stress to the Government that my hon. Friend has made a powerful point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who introduced this brief debate, spoke with his customary eloquence and impeccable logic. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond properly to my right hon. Friend's trenchant observations.
I want to concentrate briefly on clause 122. The Under-Secretary was all sweetness, reasonableness and light. He claimed that it was simply an administrative matter, which did not count, that we should not worry about it and that we could trust him. I can probably trust the Under-Secretary and we can probably trust several—not all—Ministers not to get up to truly appalling tricks. However, the clause is open ended. It flies in the face of the Under-Secretary's comments earlier in our proceedings.
At the beginning of our proceedings, the Minister promised that the measure would be
a truly generic referendums Bill—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 113.]
I do not know what that means. On Second Reading, he promised that the Government would table amendments on the nuts and bolts of organising the poll and the count. We therefore expected some nuts and bolts. However, the nuts have produced no bolts. We are considering a Henry VIII clause, whereby the Home Secretary is able to take absolute power to decide all the rules and regulations for referendums, and to create criminal offences in connection with the rules that he sets. That is inimical to true democratic Government. Such a provision should not be in the Bill.
For all the Minister's personable plausibility and good intentions, he is trying to introduce a wholly unacceptable provision. I was glad that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that he would again support our argument.
Clause 122 is not good enough. I am sure that those in another place will not believe that it is good enough. We intend to press the amendment to a Division. If the Under-Secretary does not listen to us tonight, I hope that he will listen to the other place. I have no doubt that it will find the provision as unacceptable as we do. Unless the Under-Secretary gives a categorical assurance that the clause will be withdrawn, we shall do our best to delete it this evening.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: First, I shall deal with the issue that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) raised on paragraph 2(b) of schedule 7. The provision is intended to exclude from the ambit of election expenditure unsolicited newsletters and other communications that are sent from, for example, Millbank to Labour party members. Such material is not used to influence the unaffiliated; it is, in a sense, an internal party matter.
However, referendum campaign bodies are likely to be more ad hoc, with no formal individual membership. It would therefore be almost impossible to decide who constituted a supporter. The equivalent provision in schedule 12 does not fit the circumstances, and is best deleted, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) proposed in Committee.
Paragraph 2(b) of schedule 12 refers to supporters. That term is potentially far wider than "members", which is used in schedule 7. However, I shall reconsider the point, and ascertain whether we need to do anything about it. I do not currently believe that I need to make any amendment.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) rightly pointed out that I owed him a letter. We have not forgotten that. He will receive a letter; I shall endeavour to send him it in a week. I ask him to chase me if that does not happen; I am sure that he will.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked about nuts and bolts. Clause 122 contains the order-making power, which will apply to the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the attendant regulations. We are including some of the apparatus for proper control of referendum campaigns in the Bill. Provisions under the Representation of the People Act 2000 will also apply because of the way in which the measure


affects the organisation of polling stations and the whole paraphernalia of referendums. Many of the nuts and bolts are already in place because of recent legislation. For example, the Representation of the People Act 2000 authorises different ways of providing postal ballots. The nuts and bolts will therefore be introduced to a referendum campaign in different ways.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Again, I do not doubt the Under-Secretary's sincerity, but why cannot those nuts and bolts be included in a detailed schedule to the Bill?

Mr. O'Brien: The operation of the order-making powers is clear. We have said what we intend to do. I do not need to take that further, although I am happy to do so if the hon. Gentleman has another specific point to make. I have made the position as clear I can. There is normally no great problem with the administration of referendums. The contentious matters are those that involve political issues and whether we should cap expenditure.
Let us consider capping expenditure and the arguments made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. He repeated the points that he has made on previous occasions. He claims that the Neill committee said that capping was not practical and that our proposals are not perfect. The Neill committee did not object in principle; there was no great intellectual case against it. We are discussing the practicalities of whether that can be done. We take the view that it can, hence we are doing it. I cannot take the matter much further than that.
8.30 pm
The right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal is not perfectly fair. It is not perfect perhaps, but in our view it represents a broad fairness—a balance between the umbrella groups, with some restrictions on the political parties—that is about as fair as possible in terms of the votes received at the general election. If anything, it gives a little more credit to the Conservative party. It would be very regrettable if any millionaire or multi-billionaire—a Paul Sykes, or anyone richer who opposes him on those issues—sought to buy the outcome of a referendum. We say: let the people decide in any referendum after hearing the arguments presented in a fair and balanced way. The issue should be voter choice, not who has the deepest pocket.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 106

RESTRICTION ON INCURRING REFERENDUM EXPENSES

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 67, line 1, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 107

RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF REFERENDUM EXPENSES

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 67, line 19, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".

No. 67, in page 67, line 21, leave out "without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 108

RESTRICTION ON MAKING CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF REFERENDUM EXPENSES

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 67, line 31, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 111

SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS ON REFERENDUM EXPENSES BY PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS

Amendment proposed: No. 182, in page 69, line 11, leave out clause 111.—[Sir G. Young.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 315.

Division No. 106]
[8.31 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hammond, Philip


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hawkins, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Hayes, John


Beggs, Roy
Heald, Oliver


Bercow, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Horam, John


Blunt, Crispin
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Boswell, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brady, Graham
Jenkin, Bernard


Brazier, Julian
Key, Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Butterfill, John
Lansley, Andrew


Cash, William
Letwin, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Chope, Christopher
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Loughton, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cran, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Curry, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Madel, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maples, John


Evans, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Faber, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fabricant, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford
Norman, Archie


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David


Gray, James
Randall, John


Green, Damian
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John
Robathan, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)






Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ruffley, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


St Aubyn, Nick
Townend, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trend, Michael


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tyrie, Andrew


Shepherd, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Walter, Robert


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel


Soames, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wilshire, David


Swayne, Desmond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Ann


Atkins, Charlotte
Coffey, Ms Ann


Austin, John
Cohen, Harry


Ballard, Jackie
Coleman, Iain


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cotter, Brian


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Best, Harold
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blears, Ms Hazel



Blizzard, Bob
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brake, Tom
Davidson, Ian


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Breed, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)



Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Burden, Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet



Denham, John


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Burnett, John
Drew, David


Burstow, Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ellman, Mrs Louise



Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Feam, Ronnie


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cann, Jamie
Fisher, Mark


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foulkes, George


Chaytor, David
Gapes, Mike





Gardiner, Barry
Macdonald, Calum


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McIsaac, Shona


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Godsiff, Roger
McNulty, Tony


Goggins, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Grogan, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gunnell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Harris, Dr Evan
Meale, Alan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Merron, Gillian


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mitchell, Austin


Hepburn, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hesford, Stephen
Moore, Michael


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hood, Jimmy
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Morley, Elliot


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Oaten, Mark


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hurst, Alan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hutton, John
Olner, Bill


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rapson, Syd


Khabra, Piara S
Raynsford, Nick


Kidney, David
Rendel, David


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lepper, David
Rowlands, Ted


Leslie, Christopher
Roy, Frank


Levitt, Tom
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Linton, Martin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sanders, Adrian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lock, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Love, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCabe, Steve
Shaw, Jonathan






Sheerman, Barry
Tipping, Paddy


Shipley, Ms Debra
Todd, Mark


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Touhig, Don


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Truswell, Paul


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Tyler, Paul


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Watts, David


Soley, Clive
Webb, Steve


Southworth, Ms Helen
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Willis, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winnick, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stringer, Graham
Wise, Audrey


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wood, Mike


Stunell, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wyatt, Derek


Temple—Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 14

CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 151, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert—
`(b) any relevant donation received by a permitted participant from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the permitted participant—

(i) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the permitted participant, is a permissible donor falling within section 48(2), or
(ii) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),

shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the permitted participant from a person who is not such a permissible donor.'.

No. 112, in page 152, line 17, at end insert "permitted participant and any".
No. 113, in page 152, line 18, at end insert "registered party and any".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 115

SUBMISSION OF RETURNS TO COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 69, in page 71, line 24, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 117

PUBLIC INSPECTION OF RETURNS UNDER SECTION 113

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 72, line 21, at end insert—
'(1A) If the return contains a statement of relevant donations in accordance with section 113(2)(d), the Commission shall secure that the copy of the statement made available for public inspection does not include, in the case of any donation by an individual, the donor's address.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 118

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION ETC. OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ETC.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 72, line 41, leave out "relevant" and insert "referendum".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 150, in page 73, line 10, leave out from "poll" to end of line 11.

No. 155, in page 73, leave out lines 19 and 20.
No. 149, in page 73, line 20, at end insert—
'(5) (a) No civil servant shall advocate any argument for or against any particular answer to any question in a referendum, notwithstanding the fact that this would be incidental to the issue of a press notice under subsection 3(d).

(b) In this subsection the term "civil servant" includes any person employed as a special adviser'.

Mr. Evans: The amendments relate to the conduct of the Government during referendums. Under the Labour Government, referendums are a growing industry: we have had referendums in Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland, and we are promised three more on Europe, proportional representation and the establishment of English regional assemblies. As we know, there was concern about the conduct of the referendum in Wales, which was held on 18 September 1997. Some of the changes proposed under the Bill, such as those relating to core funding, are welcome, but we remain concerned—in particular about the ludicrous and unworkable limits set on expenditure in referendum campaigns.
8.45 pm
Page 163 of the Neill committee report states:
We were disturbed, in particular, by the evidence we heard in Cardiff to the effect that the referendum campaign in Wales in 1997 was very one-sided, with the last-minute No organisation seriously under-funded and having to rely for financial support essentially on a single wealthy donor. The outcome of the Welsh referendum was extremely close, and a fairer campaign might well have resulted in a different outcome.
A Labour member of the no campaign, Carys Pugh, stated:
Without Robert Hodge, I do not know what we would have done. We could not have carried on and that would have been gravely unjust.
Robert Hodge himself said:
I do not know what the other side spent … but you can rest assured that we spent just short of £100,000. I am led to believe that the other side, with the booklets and everything else, possibly spent a seven figure sum. That puts it in proportion.


Recommendation 83 in the Neill report says:
In any referendum campaign there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters.
Neill observed the disquiet about the publications issued and distributed to every household during the 1975 European referendum, the 1997 Assembly election in Wales, the parliamentary referendum in Scotland and the 1998 Greater London Authority referendum. In Wales, a small booklet that was distributed to every household had a big tick on the front, which sent a positive message as the devolution process was explained.
On page 169 of the report, Neill puts the case for the defence very clearly. He says:
We believe that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the government of the day to offer purely objective and factual information in the course of a referendum campaign, especially when, as will usually be the case, it itself is a party to the campaign. We believe governments should not participate in referendum campaigns in this manner, just as it would be thought to be wholly inappropriate during a general election campaign for the government to print and distribute, at the taxpayers' expense, literature setting out government policy.
Recommendation 89 states that no literature, "even purportedly 'factual—"' should be sent.
As Wales has learned to its cost, once the decision is made, even with 50.3 per cent. voting yes and 49.7 per cent. voting no, a determined Government will say "Right, that's it", and they will press ahead. I am unclear about exactly what powers the Electoral Commission will have during the period of a referendum. If the Government want to send out a publication, will the Electoral Commission be able to say that they cannot do so? Will it have the power to examine the literature before it goes out, and be able to edit it? Judging by the Bill, the answer is no.
The Government have responded to the Neill committee report. Let us say that a Bill is introduced to have a referendum on the euro. As soon as the Government introduce that Bill in Parliament, all the other rules, regulations and restrictions would kick in and apply to every other organisation taking part in the referendum, except for the Government. They could issue a document promoting their policy, funded by the taxpayer and delivered to every household. Page 48 of the Government's response to Neill states:
In most of the cases in which referendums have been held so far, the purpose of the referendum has been to obtain the endorsement of the electorate for a policy which the government of the day has developed and adopted, and the view has traditionally been that a government has not only a right but a duty to explain and promote its policies.
The Government have resorted to a 28-day breather when the campaign is not too skewed by the expenditure of large sums of taxpayers' money, as Neill states. So it is all right to spend millions of pounds before D-day—before the 28 days—but then it stops. Before that 28-day breather, the Government can spend millions of pounds on promotions. We know that the Government are good at that.
The Government are now officially the second biggest spender on advertisements. They spend more than BT, McDonald's or Coca Cola. Only Procter & Gamble spends more than the Government on advertisements. Procter & Gamble, of course, spends the money on items

associated with spin tumblers, whereas the Government spend it purely on spin. Half a million pounds are currently being spent on the Government's London mayoral election publications.
We are concerned about the role that the Government will play up to and during the 28-day period. I believe Lord Neill to be correct in asserting that no Government money should be spent on promoting, or otherwise, the issue of the referendum. For goodness' sake, the umbrella groups and the political parties will be doing that. I do not think that any additional money need be spent by a Government during the period of the referendum—and I am not talking about the 28-day period.
The question of what the Government and civil servants do during and before "D-day 28" is vital. For instance, the number of special advisers has exploded. In 1997, £1.8 million was spent on them; now it is £4 million. In 1997, there were 38 special advisers; now there are 77. What will all those special advisers be doing at the time of the referendum? What role will, for example, the Treasury advisers play during a referendum on the euro? What role will Home Office advisers play in a referendum on proportional representation? What role will advisers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions play in a referendum on regional assemblies? The Government are even allowing press notices to continue to be issued by them during the 28-day period—with, no doubt, the usual spin put on them by the special advisers. No doubt the Government will consider it legitimate to continue to use such advisers to brief on their policies.
The integrity of civil servants must be beyond doubt, and one way in which they can be protected is through the Government agreeing that their advisers will not issue press notices relating to the issue of a referendum, and the briefing that goes with them. I understand from earlier debates that no statutory definition has been given of a press notice: what the Government can do is open ended.
Alastair Campbell must learn the discipline that it would be wholly wrong for him to be paid by the taxpayer to pump out propaganda at the time of a referendum, while briefing journalists accordingly. That would be a rotten practice: it would be against the spirit of the Neill report and against the whole ethos of the Bill.
There is the additional problem of the internet. I spent some time this evening looking at the No. 10 pages.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Get a life.

Mr. Evans: The Minister has a point.
Some of the pages deal with national health service waiting lists. On a day on which we learned that the number of heart bypass operations actually fell last year, is there any mention of that? Of course not; we are merely told that extra patients have been treated, and told of the desire for waiting lists to be reduced. That, arguably, is propaganda from the Government.
Student maintenance grants are also dealt with. We are told:
The old system left universities short of funds and students short of money. Our reforms which were based on the Dearing review of higher education will provide more money for higher education.
There is no mention of the fact that Dearing did not say that tuition fees should not be introduced at the time when grants disappeared. That is another example of propaganda from the Government.
The manifesto commitments state:
Education is the Government's number one priority
and speak of,
Delivering economic prosperity for the many not the few.
They speak of being
Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
We are used to all these inane soundbites from the mouth of the Prime Minister, but I think we have every cause for concern when taxpayers' money is being spent on a Government website that is spewing out Government propaganda.
I wonder what the website would be doing during the period of a referendum. It even includes the Prime Minister's speeches—for instance, one that he delivered at Ghent city hall in Belgium, which I am sure will interest many of us.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Read it out.

Mr. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows it by heart, but one section says:
A few miles from here, in Bruges, another British Prime Minister made a speech. From it stemmed the isolationist and hostile view of the European Union.
The Prime Minister was referring to Margaret Thatcher. Arguably, that is more propaganda on a website.
If the Government are to start to promote a referendum on the euro during the referendum period, we are talking about millions of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent on propaganda using the internet, which, as we know, is a growing medium for dissemination of information; it is growing at a tremendous rate. I should like the Minister to consider carefully the sort of approach that the Government will take on the use of special advisers and websites during referendum periods.
There is another alarming point. In a written question, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), asked how many press officers there were in the Home Office. The Home Secretary said that there are 14 press officers, but that the press office was being restructured, which could involve the appointment of up to 10 further press officers. Fourteen are already there, yet the Home Office will take on an extra 10. We wonder what they will all do. Will they play a proactive role? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. I know that there have been several shambles in the Home Department in the past three years. No doubt it needs some extra press officers to help to protect it from media inspection and scrutiny, but will those press officers relieve some of the special advisers during the period of referendum, so that they can carry on spinning?
Our amendments will clean up the stench that surrounds the Government's motives behind the legislative changes. Amendment No. 154 will stop the publication of material during the referendum period by the Government.

Mr. O'Brien: I think that the hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about using words such as "stench", given the history of the previous Government and the reason why the Neill committee was set up. Does he not think so?

Mr. Evans: We have accepted the Neill committee proposals. It is a great shame that the Government

did not. We want the Government to accept the fact that the committee said that it did not wish any publication of material during the period of a referendum. We are talking not about the 28 days, but about any time during that referendum. If the Minister gives us that commitment we will be extremely supportive.
Amendment No. 155 is consequential on amendment No. 154. Amendment No. 150 will stop press releases from being churned out about the referendum during the period of the referendum, including the 28 days.

Mr. O'Brien: I have a letter from Lord Neill dated 15 October. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that it says:
We welcome your proposals on the part which should be played by the government in referendum campaigns, and your recognition of the importance of ensuring that there is a period immediately prior to a referendum in which, as you say, "the government of the day … stands aside and the campaigning is left to the political parties and other organisations.
Indeed, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a Conservative Member who was on the committee, welcomed the 28-day period when he spoke in a recent debate in the House.

Mr. Evans: I know that; I have the letter and have read the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Although the Neill committee welcomed the proposals on the part to be played by the Government in a referendum and believed that the Government would stand aside, I have explained our grave cause for concern about what the Government are able to do during that 28-day period. The expenditure of vast sums of money before the 28-day period begins is something that we take seriously, too.
Amendment No. 149 will remove the ever-burgeoning army of spin doctors under the chief commander of spin—Alastair Campbell. If Ministers want to get involved in referendums—we would expect them to do so—that is fine, but let them play by the same rules that they are creating for everyone else. Let them stop saying one thing to others, but doing something different themselves. Let them throw away the loaded dice and the marked deck of cards, and let the people decide the issues in a referendum that is free and fair for all.

Mr. Stunell: The issue of press notices, which is the subject of amendment No. 150, was brought to the fore and debated in Committee. The Government owe some duty to the House to say precisely how they intend to define press releases and press notices, and what action they will take to lower Conservative Members' adrenaline levels on the issue. In the previous debate, the Minister more or less conceded that the drafting of the relevant provisions is sloppy and meaningless and requires some attention.
9 pm
The 28-day non-aggression period is desirable. The issue is not whether there should be such a period, but whether the period should be longer. Unfortunately, the impact of this group of amendments would be to remove it, leaving the situation somewhat worse than it was to begin with. In Committee, I made the point that although the 28-day period may not be perfect, it is the best one on offer. I suggested that an alternative approach might be


for the Government's period of peace to commence on registration of the first body supporting one side or other of the argument. Although that argument did not find favour in Committee, there are other alternatives to the 28-day period. Deleting that period from the Bill is not the right option.
Amendment No. 149 deals with civil servants, including special advisers. We also debated that issue in Committee. From the way in which the debate developed, I had rather thought that Conservative Members had accepted that it was very unreasonable to introduce such a restriction only on referendums, but not on other United Kingdom elections. A referendum is a pretty rare event in the United Kingdom. In this Parliament, we shall not have even one countrywide referendum.
Conversely, we often have local government elections and a variety of other considerably significant elections—for example, to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. There is no suggestion—I do not think that there has ever been a suggestion—that special advisers should be struck dumb for a part of those elections. The turnout of electors and the issues are certainly as important in those elections as they are in a referendum.
The chances of the Government having a partisan view in those elections are also higher. In this Parliament, Labour candidates have stood, or will stand, in each of those elections. However, the opportunities for special advisers to be spinning and doing all the other evils that have been so eloquently described by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are not, and have never been, restricted in those elections.
There may be a case to restrict special advisers' capacity to spin. However, I tell Conservative Members that they are getting the issue out of proportion if they think that the time to stop special advisers must be on the comparatively rare occasion of a national referendum. In referendums, Governments are likely to be less partisan than they are in local government, European, Scottish, Welsh and London mayoral elections, when Labour candidates—in the case of the London elections, one and a bit Labour candidates—will be standing, and the Government will be very anxious for a particular candidate to win. If we are considering establishing restrictions on special advisers, we should strike them dumb in those elections.
I share Conservative Members' views on the press notices issue. I believe that the 28-day period is the best offer available, as I have not seen a better one. I disagree with them on the issue of striking dumb the special advisers—although I certainly would not object if a general provision on the matter should be proposed. Additionally, an electronic red herring was dragged through the debate, which I believe is the subject of subsequent amendments.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Conservatives get so hypertensive about any references to Europe and a referendum on the single currency that it amazes me that their policy is to oppose having a referendum for two Parliaments. I am worried about their health, because they may not be able to sustain for so long the adrenaline rush that they get every time that Europe is mentioned.
This is not the first time that we have returned to ground that was travelled over in Committee and other debates—so much so that it is almost as if we are going in circles.
Clause 118 is our discharge of the Neill recommendation that, at a certain point before a referendum is held, the Government of the day should stand back and leave campaigning to the political parties and the other campaign organisations. The committee was particularly sceptical about material that, in previous cases, has been circulated to the electorate close to the date of the poll and questioned the distinction between factual and persuasive material.
The clause implements the committee's recommendation by providing for a 28-day embargo on the issuing to the public of Government publications. The charge against the Government is that the clause fails to address the Neill committee's recommendation 89. That will not wash. The clause has been welcomed by the Neill committee. Its comments on the draft Bill were published last summer. More recently, we have had the benefit of the views of the Conservative member of the Neill committee. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said:
I am glad that the Bill includes the 28-day moratorium, which meets our point—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 67.]

Mr. Evans: The Minister is saying that the Government would not publish anything within the 28-day period. Is he giving a commitment that, during a referendum campaign, the Government would not publish any documentation and get it delivered to every household?

Mr. O'Brien: In relation to the referendum campaigns there may well be all sorts of campaigns going on about bonfire night and various other issues. The hon. Gentleman seems to be unclear about the distinction between a general election and a referendum campaign. He has misunderstood what the issue is about.
We have clear endorsements for clause 118 from the Neill committee, so we want it to remain as it stands. Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 would apply the restrictions in clause 118 not just to the 28-day period before the poll, but to the full referendum period, which could be up to six months. That proposition is fundamentally misconceived and fails to recognise that the 28-day period provided for in clause 118 and the longer referendum period perform two different roles.
The referendum period will usually begin on the date on which a Bill providing for a referendum is introduced. That is essentially an accounting period. It is the period during which campaigning organisations will be subject to the limits on expenditure and controls on donations. Subject to the expenditure limits, campaigning organisations will be free to espouse their cause throughout the referendum period.
Clause 118 imposes an absolute prohibition on the publication of material of the kind mentioned in subsection (1). Extending the moratorium to cover the whole referendum period would be equivalent to applying the usual Cabinet Office guidance for the three or four weeks of a general election campaign to the 365-day accounting period provided for in part V. That is daft. The idea that a Government could be run on that basis is absurd. Unlike during a general election campaign, when


government is placed on a care and maintenance footing, the Government of the day would continue to function during a referendum campaign. There will be foreign Prime Ministers and dignitaries to see and lots of other issues to be properly undertaken. In presenting a Bill to Parliament for a referendum to be held, the Government must be able to explain and present their policies as a Government.
However, we accept that there comes a time when the Government will step back and leave it to the political parties and others to make the running on the referendum issue. A period of 28 days fits in well with the average length of general election campaigns over the past 50 years. The Neill committee made the analogy with general election campaigns, and that is a standard against which it is entirely appropriate to benchmark clause 118.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 are directed at press notices, press officers and special advisers. The Neill committee's concern was principally that the Government of the day might, at public expense, distribute material—even purportedly factual documents—which put forward the Government's case, or at least would have the effect of influencing the vote. Clause 118 is intended to prohibit that sort of distribution of unsolicited material addressed directly to the public at large.
The exceptions in clause 3, including press notices, are entirely consistent with the basic proposition that the Government of the day should not be able unfairly to influence the conduct of a referendum campaign. The exemption for press notices is not an attempt to circumvent the basic principle contained in the clause. The point of the restrictions is to prevent the Government from distributing unsolicited mail.
It was suggested in Committee that the Government of the day might be tempted to stick the words "press notice" on the top of a publicity leaflet and post it through the letter box of everyone in the country. Frankly, this is fanciful and completely ridiculous. A press notice is a notice to the press, and not to the general public, and I cannot see any civil servants getting involved in that sort of scam. If a Government stooped to such tactics, I am confident that the courts would quickly put a stop to it.
On the role of civil servants, I wish to refer to the press officers at the Home Office. I suspect that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will find few members of the Gallery—particularly Home Office correspondents—complaining, although getting the phone answered at the press office, despite the number of staff we have, is sometimes difficult. We are doing so much on fighting crime that the press are finding it difficult to get all the information that they need to report it. We want to make sure that the phones are answered. That is perfectly reasonable, and was the result of an independent recommendation. Press officers must be free to direct inquiries made to a Government Department. That they should be able to do so in the run-up to a referendum is wholly in keeping with the approach proposed by the clause.
To reply to a letter from a member of the public—or indeed from an Opposition Member—or to respond to a question posed by a journalist does not amount to publishing, displaying or distributing material to the public at large or to a sector of the public. Such action in response to individual requests for information amounts to no more than good administration, and it would be wrong to deny the public the service that they have the right to expect from a civil service of the state.
The basis of all the amendments is misconceived. They rely on the charge that the Bill fails to implement the Neill committee's recommendation 89. The Neill committee's own response to the White Paper exposes that charge as completely false and bogus. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley should withdraw the amendments and acknowledge that clause 118, to paraphrase the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, fully meets the point.

Mr. Evans: I rather wish that the Parliamentary Secretary—the Minister who normally doles out the cigarettes, as he was described in previous debates—had answered the debate, as we might have got somewhere. That was a characteristically unpleasant response from the Minister.
All our fears have been fulfilled. I understand now that Alastair Campbell will be able to carry on with his spinning, and ensuring that his army of 77 other spin doctors will be able to carry on spinning during a referendum campaign. I understand also that, prior to the 28-day period, the Government are absolutely free to do whatever they like. The restrictions come in on everybody else, apart from the Government. With the restrictions on expenditure, the dice are loaded completely in favour of the Government.
We have had no concessions from the Government, and we are extremely concerned that all the loopholes are still there. Call me a cynic, but it is as if the Bill has been written to ensure that the Government are able to have their way. We still remember the way in which the referendum campaign in Wales was run, and that is why I believe the amendments will be visited again in another place. Although we are not pressing these amendments to a vote tonight, it does not mean that we have stopped the fight.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 122

ORDERS REGULATING CONDUCT OF REFERENDUMS

Amendment proposed: No. 146, in page 75, line 17, leave out Clause 122.—[Sir P. Cormack.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 290.

Division No. 107]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brand, Dr Peter


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Breed, Colin


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ballard, Jackie
Burnett, John


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burstow, Paul


Bercow, John
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Blunt, Crispin



Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Chope, Christopher


Brady, Graham
Clappison, James


Brake, Tom
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)






Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maples, John



Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moore, Michael


Cotter, Brian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Norman, Archie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Oaten, Mark


Donaldson, Jeffrey
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fallon, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Feam, Ronnie
Prior, David


Forsythe, Clifford
Randall, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Rendel, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Garnier, Edward
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gray, James
Shepherd, Richard


Green, Damian
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Greenway, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Grieve, Dominic
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Soames, Nicholas


Hammond, Philip
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Harris, Dr Evan
Spring, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hayes, John
Steen, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Streeter, Gary


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Stunell, Andrew


Horam, John
Swayne, Desmond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jenkin, Bernard
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Key, Robert
Townend, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Trend, Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tyler, Paul


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tyrie, Andrew


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Viggers, Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Letwin, Oliver
Wardle, Charles


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Waterson, Nigel


Lidington, David
Webb, Steve


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Llwyd, Elfyn
Whittingdale, John


Loughton, Tim
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Luff, Peter
Wilkinson, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Willis, Phil


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wilshire, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert



McLoughlin, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madel, Sir David
Mr. Stephen Day and


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainger, Nick
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Alexander, Douglas
Atkins, Charlotte


Allen, Graham
Austin, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barnes, Harry





Barron, Kevin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Beard, Nigel
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Flint, Caroline


Begg, Miss Anne
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bennett, Andrew F
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Roger
Gardiner, Barry


Best, Harold
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Blackman, Liz
Gerrard, Neil


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Borrow, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godsiff, Roger


Bradshaw, Ben
Goggins, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grogan, John


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hanson, David


Cawsey, Ian
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Healey, John


Chaytor, David
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cooper, Yvette
Hurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Crausby, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, Mrs Ann Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cummings, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)




Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dawson, Hilton
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Drew, David
Kidney, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Edwards, Huw
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Laxton, Bob


Etherington, Bill
Lepper, David






Leslie, Christopher
Roy, Frank


Levitt, Tom
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Linton, Martin
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lock, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Love, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCabe, Steve
Shaw, Jonathan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Shipley, Ms Debra


McDonnell, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Singh, Marsha


McIsaac, Shona
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mactaggart, Fiona



McWalter, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stevenson, George


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stinchcombe, Paul


Meale, Alan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Merron, Gillian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stringer, Graham


Miller, Andrew
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mitchell, Austin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moftatt, Laura
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morley, Elliot
Temple—Morris, Peter


Mountford, Kali
Thomas' Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mullin, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Truswell, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Tynan, Bill


Pearson, Ian
Ward, Ms Claire


Pendry, Tom
Watts, David


Perham, Ms Linda
White, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pond, Chris
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pope, Greg
Wilson, Brian


Pound, Stephen
Winnick, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wise, Audrey


Prosser, Gwyn
Wood, Mike


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Woodward, Shaun


Quinn, Lawrie
Woolas, Phil


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Worthington, Tony


Rapson, Syd
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Raynsford, Nick
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wyatt, Derek


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 15

CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO CANDIDATES: NEW SCHEDULE 2A TO THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983

Amendments made: No. 114, in page 155, line 47, leave out from "agent" to end of line 50 and insert—
`("the donee") from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the donee—

(a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the donee, is a permissible donor falling within section 48(2) of the 2000 Act, or
(b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3) of that Act,

shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the donee from a person who is not such a permissible donor.'.

No. 115, in page 156, line 35, leave out—
'a relevant donation received by'.

No. 116, in page 156, line 36, after "agent" insert—
`and any relevant donation received by him'.

No. 117, in page 156, line 36, after first "a" insert "registered party and any".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 125

MEANING OF "ELECTION EXPENSES"

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 78, line 24, leave out "£20" and insert "£50".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 16

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ELECTION PETITIONS

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 158, leave out lines 7 to 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 119 to 122, 132 and 133.

Mr. Tipping: The amendments deal with the rather arcane practice of election petitions, and I shall deal with them quickly. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of schedule 16, to which amendments Nos. 118 to 120 relate, remove the requirement that parliamentary and local election petitions are tried locally. I understand that a parliamentary election petition has not been heard since 1929. However, new information suggests that some local petitions have been heard fairly recently. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 120 delete or amend paragraphs 2 to 6 of schedule 16, so as to preserve the status quo. Amendment No. 132 makes consequential changes.
Amendment No. 119 also repeals section 130(2)(a)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents a judge from serving on an election court in the area where he practises—a procedure that appears to be out of date.
Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 133 relate to paragraph 8 of schedule 16. This paragraph removes the provision in section 153 of the 1983 Act in which an elector may stand in the place of the respondent. That provision dates back to the time when electors and candidates had difficulty travelling. I hope that the House will therefore agree to modernise election practices.

Sir Patrick Cormack: When the Minister talks about maintaining the status quo, he has our sympathy;


when he talks about modernisation, he has our deep distrust. Nevertheless, there is nothing too violently appalling in his suggestions, although we shall certainly ensure that they are considered with great assiduity in the other place. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we may want to return to them. However, with that point, I commend the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 119, in page 158, line 16, leave out from "trial)" to end of line 17 and insert—
', in subsection (2)(b) (disqualification of persons to constitute election court) for the words from "area" onwards substitute "area in which he resides.".'.

No. 120, in page 158, leave out lines 18 and 19.

No. 121, in page 158, line 21, leave out "152" and insert "153".

No. 122, in page 158, leave out lines 22 to 27.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 17

ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND PROCEEDINGS: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 123, in page 160, line 26, at end insert—
'(1A) If any such return contains a statement of donations in accordance with section 81(3)(e) above, the appropriate officer shall secure that the copy of the statement made available for public inspection under subsection (1)(a) above or (as the case may be) supplied under subsection (1)(b) above does not include, in the case of any donation by an individual, the donor's address.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Dr. Julian Lewis: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 160, line 30, at end insert—
'7A.—(1) Section 106 (false statements as to candidates) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after the words "character or conduct" there shall be inserted the words "or fails to take reasonable steps to withdraw from circulation and public availability a false statement previously made or published".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
(1A) Tor the avoidance of doubt, a person who makes or publishes a statement on the Internet or by other electronic means, or who causes a statement to be so made or published, makes or publishes a statement for the purposes of this subsection; and a person who fails to remove or cause the removal of a statement from the Internet shall be regarded as having failed, for the purposes of this subsection, to take reasonable steps to withdraw that statement from circulation and public availability".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 160, line 30, at end insert—
'7B.—(1) Section 106 (false statements as to candidates) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), the words "(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election" shall be omitted.'.

Dr. Lewis: The amendments deal with the telling of deliberate lies during an election campaign about a candidate in that campaign, with the intention of damaging his vote. Amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment.
Amendment No. 1 is more substantive; it is aimed at closing a specific loophole. I declare an interest because the loophole was exposed in a case that affected me. Deliberate lies were told about me during the previous general election campaign. I was able to secure the sevenfold conviction of the person responsible, but the conviction was overturned on appeal on a legal technicality. The purpose of the amendments is to try to close the loophole illustrated by my case.
I mentioned the matter briefly on Second Reading and in much greater detail in Committee on 10 February. I shall not take up the time of the House by rehearsing those points. I was gratified by the interest and by the support in dealing with the problem that were shown by Conservative Front-Bench Members and by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I was especially touched by the sympathy and concern shown by Labour Members—most notably the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who has probably forgotten more about the internet than I shall ever manage to learn. I have also received sympathy and encouragement—although, as yet, no guarantee of action—from no fewer than three Home Office Ministers. I am sure that they want to close the loophole and I shall be happy to co-operate with them in negotiating the minefield of the knock-on problems that might affect other legislation if my proposal were accepted.
Section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is short and clear. It states:
A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

(a) before or during an election,
(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,

makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true.
In order to secure a conviction under that provision, one has to show that what was told was a deliberate lie. It is not enough to show that it was false—one must show that the person who made the allegation against the candidate knew that he was lying when he made it. One also has to show that the person's motive was to affect the result by damaging the candidate's vote. Furthermore, as the section makes clear, it applies only to the period of the election campaign and to polling day itself.
In the case of the allegations on the internet made against me, it was held by the Crown Prosecution Service that the continued broadcasting of those allegations on the internet throughout the period of the election campaign amounted to a continuous process of re-publication. That view was not upheld on appeal. If deliberately false allegations are placed on the internet even before an election campaign begins, if they are made with the intention of affecting a candidate's vote and if they are not stopped during the campaign, amendment No. 1 would make it clear that that would amount to publication during the election campaign.
I shall not go through the points that were put to me in an extremely helpful letter that the Minister sent to me yesterday. It outlined the difficulties that might arise if we closed the loophole in the way that I suggest. I assure him that I will take up his offer of commenting on those points, and I am convinced that there are answers to every


one of the possible objections to closing the loophole that have been made and that he has helpfully gathered together in his letter.
The normal way to deal with deliberate defamation is through the civil courts, but that breaks down in certain circumstances. The first is when the defamation's damage cannot be undone by the subsequent payment of financial damages. For example, if an election result is decisively affected, no payment of money after the event can compensate for that. It also breaks down if the defamer cannot repay the victim's costs even if the victim succeeds in obtaining an injunction and subsequently wins a civil case.
What are the ways forward? I have three possible suggestions. First, we could adopt something similar to amendment No. 1 with the added proviso that the deliberate liar should have been challenged to remove the deliberate lie for the entirety of the election campaign, and have failed to do so. Secondly, there is the possibility of adopting the civil route, but indemnifying the candidate who is the victim of the defamation against legal costs if his case against the defamer is proved and the deliberate liar declares his inability to pay his victim's costs after the event. Finally, we could consider adopting the methods used by the Internet Watch Foundation but lay a statutory duty on internet service providers to block access to the sites throughout the campaign.
I will not take the argument any further at this point, but I look forward to hearing what progress the Government have made in finding their way through the labyrinth that confronts us in this new technological age.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall be brief. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. There is universal agreement that the principle that he has outlined is correct.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that perhaps the solution that he should consider is not to think of the internet service provider as the publisher, but more as the post office. He should concentrate on the authors of such libels, because these problems will face many Members in the future. The matter must be resolved.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Although truth is frequently a fugitive and a casualty in general election campaigns, impugning the character of individuals is a very serious matter. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for the way in which he has approached what has been a distressing matter for him. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and to all the others who have given support.
We on the Opposition Front Bench wish to associate ourselves wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's remarks. I have seen the Minister's letter, and we are grateful for his expression of sympathy. However, it is important that these so-called loopholes are plugged and it is crucial that we reach a proper solution. We shall not press the issue tonight, but we want a solution that provides the answer that my hon. Friend seeks.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government note the broad support on both sides of the House for dealing with this issue, and the strong sympathy that exists for the proposition made, on this occasion, by the hon. Member

for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I have already indicated to him my personal sympathy for his view. There are, however, practical difficulties to overcome. I have set those out in a letter to him, and I offer him another meeting if he wants to discuss the matter further. I am happy to discuss the issues with him. I make it clear that at this stage I can give him no assurance that we will be able to support him, but the door to dialogue is open and I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In view of that expectedly helpful response from the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 130

REDUCTION OF QUALIFYING PERIOD FOR OVERSEAS ELECTORS

Mr. Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 82, line 5, at end insert—
`and in the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 175, in schedule 18, page 162, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Mr. Walter: Amendment No. 145 highlights an important inconsistency. The provisions set out in schedule 18 will be inserted in the Companies Act 1985. That would appear to be consistent with clause 48, which says:
For the purposes of this Part the following are permissible donors … a company … registered under the Companies Act 1985—
consistent so far—
or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
That order appears to be missing from part IX, and is certainly missing from clause 130 and schedule 18.
I remind the Minister of the White Paper published by the Home Office, which said:
The Bill as introduced will amend the Companies Act 1985 to give effect to these conclusions.
It continued:
Parallel amendments will be made to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
There was temporary devolution to a Northern Ireland Assembly, which has now been suspended. The order to which I referred was passed by the House, and the House has the power to amend it to bring it into line with the Bill. I expect the Government to accept our amendment to expand the provision to bring Northern Ireland companies into line with those in the rest of the UK.
Amendment No. 175 deals with a concern raised with hon. Members by the Confederation of British Industry, which is the definition of an EU political organisation. Schedule 18 makes it clear that such an organisation can be a political party, but goes on to say that it can also be
any other organisation which carries on, or proposes to carry on, activities of any political nature in the United Kingdom or any other member State.


That is a catch-all phrase. What does "any political nature" mean? Does it refer to the Institute for Public Policy Research or the Centre for Policy Studies? Companies are genuinely concerned that contributions that they might make to quasi-academic organisations that produce political papers will be deemed political donations.
I remind the Minister that in Committee his colleague, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), said:
We will need to take the issue away and reflect on it.—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee G, 10 February 2000; c. 390.]
We have not heard that the Government have discussed the matter.

Mr. Tipping: We talked about this issue at some length in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has reinforced his points today. Suffice it to say that I recognise, as does the House, that Northern Ireland has its own companies legislation. That is a devolved issue, which the Government believe requires separate and parallel legislation. I know that my answer will be unsatisfactory to him. In view of our lengthy discussion of Northern Ireland issues earlier this evening, I suspect that we will return to this matter at a later date.
Amendment No. 175 is interesting. The hon. Gentleman says that it has been influenced by the CBI. The Government accept that the current definition of an EU political organisation is very broad and have therefore agreed to consider it further. There is to be a meeting with the CBI this coming Thursday and we shall listen to the views of the CBI. Following the meeting, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Again, we may need to return to the issue at a later stage.

Mr. Walter: I expect that we shall revisit the issue in another place. In view of the assurances given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 134

SUPERVISORY POWERS OF COMMISSION

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 85, line 16, after "or", insert "other".

No. 73, in page 85, line 26, leave out from "records" to end of line 31 and insert—
'(3A) Where any such records as are mentioned in subsection (1) or (3) are kept in electronic form, then—

(a) the power of the Commission under subsection (1) to require any such records to be produced for inspection includes power to require a copy of the records to be made available for inspection in legible form (and subsection (2)(a) shall accordingly apply in relation to any copy so made available); and
(b) the power of any person ("the inspector") under subsection (3) to inspect any such records includes power to require any person on the premises in question to give the inspector such assistance as he may reasonably require to enable him—



(i) to inspect and make copies of the records in legible form or to make records of information contained in them, or
(ii) to inspect and check the operation of any computer, and any associated apparatus or material, that is or has been in use in connection with the keeping of the records.'.

No. 74, in page 85, line 37, after second "to", insert—
'(a)".

No. 75, in page 85, line 38, after "donee)", insert "or
(b) a person who is (or has been) a candidate at an election (other than a local government election in Scotland) or the election agent for such a candidate,".

No. 76, in page 85, line 40, after "(2)", insert "(3A),".

No. 77, in page 85, line 43, after "obtaining", insert—
'(a)".

No. 78, in page 85, line 47, at end insert—
`or
(b) such information or explanations relating to expenses incurred by or on behalf of candidates within paragraph (b) of that subsection as the Commission reasonably require for the purpose of monitoring compliance on the part of such candidates and their agents with the restrictions imposed by or by virtue of any enactment on the incurring of such expenses,
as the case may be.'.

No. 79, in page 86, leave out line 11 and insert—
'or (in the case of such a party with accounting units) the central organisation of the party or any of its accounting units,'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 19

PENALTIES

Amendment made: No. 124, in page 169, leave out lines 11 to 13.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 141

OFFENCES COMMITTED BY UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 91, line 14, leave out from "Act" to "be" in line 16 and insert—
`, and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any partner, he as well as the partnership shall'.

No. 81, in page 91, line 20, leave out from "Act" to first "be" in line 27 and insert—
`and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) any officer of the association, or
(b) any member of the committee or other similar governing body of the association,

he, as well as the association, shall'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 144

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 92, line 16, at end insert—
`(dd) section 122;'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 148

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 83, in page 93, line 27, at end insert—
' "functions" includes powers and duties;'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 20

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 173, line 22, leave out—
'In section 3(8)(a) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978'
and insert—
'(1) The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (as amended by the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3(8)(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 126, 128 to 130 and 134.

Mr. Tipping: This group of six amendments makes consequential changes to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998, arising from part V. Each of those three statutes makes arrangements for the control of election expenditure by registered parties. The detailed arrangements for that, which are set out in subordinate legislation, were intended as stop-gap measures pending the enactment of the Bill.
Henceforth, campaign expenditure by registered parties at elections to the European and Scottish Parliaments and the Welsh Assembly will be controlled by part V. Accordingly, the powers to regulate such expenditure in those three statutes are no longer necessary and will be repealed by the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 126, in page 173, line 25, at end insert—
'(3) In paragraph 2(3A)(a) of Schedule 1 (European Parliamentary elections), for "(including expenses incurred in relation to a general election as a whole)" substitute "of candidates".'.

No. 127, in page 173, line 36, at end insert—
'(5) In Schedule 1 (parliamentary elections rules), at the end of rule 14 (publication of statement of persons nominated) insert—
(5) The returning officer shall send to the Electoral Commission—

(a) a copy of the statement; and
(b) in the case of each candidate standing nominated in respect of whom a certificate has been received by the returning officer in accordance with rule 6A above, a copy of that certificate as well." '.

No. 128, in page 174, line 37, at end insert—
'(2A) In section 11(2)(c) (power to make provision about elections) omit "and registered political parties".'.

No. 129, in page 175, line 18, leave out—
'In section 5(9) of the Scotland Act 1998'

and insert—
'(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows. (2) In section 5(9)'.

No. 130, in page 175, line 20, at end insert—
'(3) In section 12(2)(c) (power to make provision about elections) omit "and registered political parties".'.

No. 131, in page 175, line 34, at end insert—
Representation of the People Act 2000 (c.00)
14.—(1) Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (pilot schemes) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
(1A) Subsection (1) applies to proposals falling within that subsection which are submitted by a relevant local authority jointly with the Electoral Commission as if in that subsection—

(a) the first reference to any such authority in paragraph (a), and
(b) the reference to the authority in paragraph (b)(ii),

were each a reference to the authority and the Commission; and, in a case where any such proposals are not jointly so submitted, the Secretary of State must consult the Commission before making an order under that subsection.
(3) In subsection (5)(a), after "the authority concerned" insert "and to the Electoral Commission".
(4) In subsection (6), for "the authority concerned" substitute "the Electoral Commission".
(5) After subsection (6) insert—
(6A) The report shall be prepared by the Electoral Commission in consultation with the authority concerned; and that authority shall provide the Commission with such assistance as they may reasonably require in connection with the preparation of the report (which may, in particular, include the making by the authority of arrangements for ascertaining the views of voters about the operation of the scheme).
(6) In subsection (7), after "The report shall" insert ", in particular,".
(7) For subsection (10) substitute—
(10) Once the Electoral Commission have prepared the report, they shall send a copy of the report—

(a) to the Secretary of State, and
(b) to the authority concerned,

and that authority shall publish the report in their area, in such manner as they think fit, by the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the declaration of the result of the elections in question.
15. In section 11 of that Act (revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes), at the end of subsection (1) insert—
The power of the Secretary of State to make such an order shall, however, be exercisable only on a recommendation of the Electoral Commission." '. —[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 21

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 132, in page 176, column 3, leave out lines 27 to 30.

No. 133, in page 176, line 31, column 3, leave out "152" and insert "153".

No. 134, in page 177, line 8, at end insert—


`1998 c.38.
Government of Wales Act 1998.
In section 11(2)(c), the words "and registered political parties".


1998. c. 46.
Scotland Act 1998.
In section 12(2)(c), the words "and registered political parties".'.

—[Mr. Touhig.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is important. It implements commitments that the Government made when we came into office. We said that we would ban the foreign funding of political parties and require the disclosure of large donations. The Bill does that. We said that we would refer the matter of party funding to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and the Bill follows from that. It will improve confidence in our political institutions.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that we wanted to listen during the Bill's passage through the House. The large number of amendments that we tabled in Committee, many of which were first suggested by the Opposition, show that the Government were prepared to listen and to move forward, as far as possible, by consensus. Perhaps we have not always achieved consensus, but we can claim to have achieved it in large measure.
The Government can claim credit for accepting virtually the whole of the Neill report and introducing reasonable proposals. We can also claim credit for having listened, as we amply demonstrated in Committee and on Report.
The opposition parties can also claim credit for accepting and subscribing to the thrust of the Neill report and for the constructive way in which, throughout most of the proceedings on the Bill, they have probed and sought to introduce new concepts and ideas. As a result, the Bill is a much better piece of legislation.
Some issues still divide us, and there are some on which further improvements to the Bill have yet to be made. I am sorry that the official Opposition have not felt able to rally fully to all the provisions on referendums. I wonder whether they would have supported those provisions had they refrained from considering the matter solely from the perspective of the one issue that so preoccupies them. Doubtless the issues will be reconsidered in another place.
We have had some good debates. The House has debated some contentious issues in rumbustious style, but it has also been in good form when considering matters that can engender consensus. Every hon. Member has an obligation to ensure that we tackle some of the public anxiety that existed in the mid-1990s about the way in which political life was moving. We must ensure that the public's confidence in their political institutions is improved.
The Government will want to consider some issues further when the Bill reaches another place. We want to settle the matter that the Liberal Democrats raised about how the provisions can best be applied to parties that have a federal structure. We are trying to progress through consensus and to accommodate genuine anxieties about the structure of the Bill.
It is fair to say that the Bill's structure does not easily accommodate the Liberal Democrats. We hope to integrate the structure of that party into the Bill, through a few appropriate amendments, so that it can continue to function reasonably while complying with the law. I appreciate that Liberal Democrats want to ensure that they are able to comply with the law.
The provisions on donations and sponsorship require clarification. That applies especially to commercial arrangements, including hiring stands at party conferences.
That matter has caused anxiety among all parties. Those who work for Members of Parliament or for political parties and have to make decisions and arrangements—commercial or otherwise—need clear law and guidance about the way in which the Bill will affect them.
Those matters are not likely to be contentious. We agree that work needs to be done in establishing the provisions' operation in detail. However, there is a shared acknowledgement that the issues are complex and require detailed understanding—if only the complexities of political parties' rules on commercial and other funding arrangements, which have developed over many decades and have perhaps become far more complex recently, could be satisfactorily resolved through a spirit of consensus.
I want to revert to the timing of the implementation of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary raised that matter on Second Reading.

Mr. Tipping: Sit down.

Mr. O'Brien: I have received a message in a suitably off-stage voice from the powers that be. It is contrary to the message that I received earlier.
The Bill is a good measure, which is based on a good report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It deserves to make good progress. I hope that it is in good shape for the travails ahead.

Sir George Young: My party will not obstruct Third Reading for the reasons that it did not obstruct Second Reading. The Bill has a key role to play in cleaning up British politics by setting out a framework with clear rules and an independent umpire and greater transparency. Throughout our discussions there has been a commendable restraint from scoring party points on past transgressions. No party is above criticism and we have a common interest in elevating public esteem for our profession.
The Bill has been much improved since 10 January. We raised points on the penal regime for volunteers, which has been softened, and the role of the Electoral Commission has been changed. We have made progress on the regime for overseas voters and on the Speaker's Committee. The Bill is in better shape, though not yet of the Savile row quality that Conservative Members like to see. The upper House has adjustments to make on sponsorship, overseas voters, the federal party structure and Northern Ireland, and we shall need a lot of time to consider the raft of Lords amendments when the Bill returns to this House.
We could not reach agreement on a number of issues on which we backed the Neill committee and the Government opposed it. The Bill faces a tough timetable, as the Minister reminded us yesterday.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). They bore the burden of the Bill—which was subcontracted to them by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, who is fully stretched by keeping an eye on what the Home Office is getting up to—but were ably assisted by two jobbing builders, my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack).
It would be churlish not to compliment the two Ministers on their conciliatory approach, which assisted consideration of the Bill. I referred to one as the tough copper who shines the bright light in our eyes and to the other as the chap with the cigarettes. They extracted no confessions from the Opposition, but their co-operative approach made it easier to deal with a long and complicated Bill. Although we differed from the hon. Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) at times, we very much welcomed their thoughtful and constructive approach.
I am pleased that it has been possible to complete consideration of the Bill without the savage guillotines that the Government have applied on other occasions to get their legislation through the House. We have not seen the last of the Bill. It is not perfect, although we have improved it. The Opposition wish it well.

Mr. Stunell: I shall be brief.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Two minutes.

Mr. Stunell: Indeed. I understand the pressures of time. I welcome the fact that we have reached Third Reading as this significant Bill will have far-reaching consequences. The controls on general election expenditure at national level are long overdue and most welcome, and the introduction of a formal framework for referendums is also welcome.
I thank the ministerial team, who have been courteous and, on the whole, helpful to Opposition parties. I particularly welcome the Minister's somewhat abbreviated comments on the Liberal Democrats' difficulties with a particular aspect of the Bill. I reassert that we fully favour total compliance with the Bill and its guidelines. We have no wish to seek any way around it. Although we believe that there are implementation difficulties, the general thrust of the Bill is right and has been from the beginning. We have been happy to support it at each stage and do so tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2001 a number not exceeding 47,345 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, a number not exceeding 17,148 for Service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces, and a number not exceeding 200 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Naval Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2001 a number not exceeding 128,235 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 84,295 for Service in the Reserve Land Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2001 a number not exceeding 57,450 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 26,000 for Service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 430 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1998–1999

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £37,847,584.45 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1999, as set out in HC 276.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1999–2000

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £2,510,712,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 2000, as set out in HC 242, 243 and 275.

ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Civil and Defence Services for the year ending on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 244.

Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Stephen Timms and Miss Melanie Johnson do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1999, 2000 and 2001: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 86.].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LONDON GOVERNMENT

That the draft Greater London Authority Elections (Expenses) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Forestry Commissioners) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Rural Banks

Mr. Paul Marsden: On behalf of 1,850 people living in the rural areas of Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shropshire, I wish to present a petition which I wholeheartedly support.

The petition states:

To the House of Commons
The Petition of Shropshire Residents
Declares that

The threat to close the rural Lloyds TSB bank in Pontesbury should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It would affect 400 customers, two staff and is another indication of the decline in the provision of rural services by a major bank.
The Petitioners Therefore Request that the House of Commons
Urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to review the practice of major banks closing rural branches.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Lung Cancer (Women)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Dr. Ian Gibson: I raise this subject in some anger because of the disdain manifested by tobacco chiefs and their friends, among whom is a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have displayed total irresponsibility in respect of women and lung cancer. The Government have shown a degree of nonchalance about an issue that affects the health of many women in this country and throughout the developed world.
Since 1987, more women in the United States of America have died of lung cancer than of breast cancer. It is four times more common than cancer of the cervix. Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world and the third most common cause of death in the UK, with about 30,000 people a year dying of it. Among men, deaths from lung cancer increased by 20 per cent. between 1976 and 1994, but among women the increase was 150 per cent. in the same period. Nearly one half of all new lung cancer cases are women. The problem must be addressed.
I believe that the problem has arisen because of the increasing propensity of young women to smoke cigarettes. Women in the United States are twice as likely as men to develop lung cancer, despite the fact that women smoke less than men and women smokers inhale less deeply than men smokers.
That shows that there may be genetic differences between men and women which result in cigarette smoke and the chemicals it contains having different effects on their biochemistry. As the human genome project unfolds, the problem will be that people will think that they do not have the gene in question, and can smoke as much as they like because they are not predisposed to these cancers and the development of illnesses associated with cancers and chemicals in the smoke.
At the recent world summit on cancer in Paris, the potential epidemic of lung cancer was underlined and equated with the increasing prevalence of smoking among women in the developing world. Ninety per cent. of lung cancers are smoking related. It is disturbing to realise that cigarette smoke is the greatest serial killer in the western world, and smoking is most common among young people in the 20 to 24 age group. Each day, 450 teenagers and children start smoking, and it is estimated that a quarter of all 15-year-olds in the United Kingdom smoke.
Lung cancer sufferers may be treated by surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or a combination of those treatments. Five-year survival rates remain poor, and according to the Cancer Research Campaign and BACUP, the British Association of Cancer United Patients, five-year survival rates are half as good in the UK as in France. In this country, 7 per cent. of lung cancer patients are still alive five years after diagnosis, whereas in France 14 per cent. survive that long. There is plenty of evidence to show that outcomes are better if treatment is managed by specialist, multi-disciplinary teams, and more patients should have access to that type of care. There is also an urgent need for extended radiotherapy and for more lung cancer specialists.
As regards screening for lung cancer, long-term recovery depends more on early detection than on any other factor. A recent conference at the Royal Society of Medicine focused on improved methods of detecting lung cancer, which could lead to the development of a screening system similar to that used for cervical cancer. The United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research into lung cancer, chaired by Professor Ian Smith of the Royal Marsden, is currently designing a proposal for a lung cancer screening trial—so-called spiral CT scanning. Data from the United States of America and Japan suggest that such screening has a higher pick-up rate than even screening for breast cancer, and that most of the tumours it identifies are small and surgically curable. I hope that funding will be provided for the NHS research and development budget for that trial.
The Government have some significant initiatives to tackle lung cancer, especially as it affects women. In the past year, the Department of Health has issued guidance on treating lung cancer as part of its series of guidelines on different types of cancer and their treatments. Last spring, the previous Health Minister, the noble Baroness Hayman, announced £10 million for new initiatives to improve lung cancer services, primarily by speeding up access to diagnosis and treatment.
Department of Health figures show that treating smoking-related diseases costs the national health service £1.7 billion per year. The previous Minister for Public Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), said that reducing smoking was the Government's top public health priority. Ministers have made available £100 million over three years for anti-smoking initiatives. In the pre-Budget statement in November 1999, the Chancellor announced that future real term increases in tobacco duties would be spent on health care. That is an amazing step forward. Tobacco duty will rise by 5 per cent. in real terms next month, yielding an additional £300 million a year for the health service. There is a case for using that money to target lung cancer, given its links to tobacco.
Ranged against the Government is a powerful tobacco industry. Documents recently released under the US freedom of information legislation show that the industry plans to use a variety of techniques to target women, particularly young women, women in the third and developing world, women who are unemployed and those on low incomes. In this country 90 per cent. of lone parents, mostly women, smoke. We would do well to remember that 41,000 people in the country die each year because of smoking-related illnesses—not just lung cancers, but heart disease, strokes and other illnesses associated with tobacco.
It would, however, be less than honest to forget that there is a shadowy third party in the equation. Successive Governments have found tobacco to be an apparently endless source of revenue, and it would seem that they are now as addicted to the tobacco revenues as the tobacco consumers are to tobacco. There is therefore a dilemma, or rather a series of dilemmas. Smokers are numerous, and although their addiction is recognised, they are encouraged by groups such as FOREST—the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco—and the tobacco industry to regard smoking as a human right.
Legislation to prohibit tobacco does not seem to be an option. Health education programmes make the Government feel rather good, and the tobacco industry loves that, because it knows that they are completely ineffective among the population whom it is most anxious to target: young women. Leaving it to individuals is not enough, in my opinion and that of others. We need collective activity against the whole tobacco industry.
The Exchequer, of course, finds it difficult to forgo such an important source of revenue. So what are the options? Is it really an option for us, knowing the facts as we do, to stand by and let succeeding generations become addicted to tobacco and suffer the consequences? Much could be done through the engineering of a social change that could phase out tobacco use over a generation. Gradual change would be easier to implement, and would make it easier to compensate for effects such as loss of revenue. Gradual change, however, should not be interpreted as a willingness to let tobacco companies off the hook; quite the contrary. Surely it is time we decided that the injury they cause our society is unacceptable.
A system of progressively punitive taxation on the commercial activity of tobacco manufacture—not just a tax on the product, but a special tax on the profitability of the industry—would allow a screw to be tightened progressively, which would eventually cause companies to diversify into non-harmful products, or to wither and eventually become much less attractive to investors. In the end, they would simply disappear. There are recent precedents for that, in the form of windfall taxes.
There cannot be an inalienable right to trade in products that cause misery, premature morbidity and death. We need to increase awareness of tobacco consumption as the single most important women's health issue—which I believe it is—rather than as a personal freedom. Women must be made aware of their special susceptibility to lung cancer and other problems, and must be given more practical help and support to overcome the problems of addiction and social pressures to smoke. The industry must also have its wings clipped in terms of the marketing of its existing products, and must be given notice of the determination that its products will not be tolerated in the future and that effective steps will be taken to phase out production altogether.
It is vital that research into the treatment of tobacco-related disease should continue. Excellent work is going on at, for instance, the Roy Castle centre in Liverpool, but I believe that a national cancer institute should co-ordinate a major clinical research effort focused on women's lung cancer, while applying continued pressure on succeeding Governments to ensure that an effective solution is found to the social problem of tobacco production and marketing.
I plead with the Minister to "make my Parliament" and to make her career. I plead with her to take up the cudgels and save all the thousands of lives that might otherwise be ended because of smoking, particularly among young women. That is the action that would make the best headlines and engender confidence in our cancer programme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for raising


what is an important matter. As he pointed out, the scale of the problem is considerable. Lung cancer is the most common cancer in England and Wales. There are about 35,000 new cases every year and 30,000 deaths, of which some 11,000 are women.
Although the number of men diagnosed with lung cancer has been steadily falling for almost two decades, we are seeing a rise in the number of women diagnosed with the disease. That is of great concern. The latest figures suggest that, between 1993 and 1996, there was a rise of about 5 per cent. in the number of women diagnosed with lung cancer, at a time when the number of men diagnosed fell by an equal amount.
We have to do better. The United Kingdom has one of the worst records in Europe on deaths from lung cancer among women, with death rates more than double those of many European Union countries. The Government have set clear and demanding targets for improvement. In the White Paper entitled "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which was published in July last year, we committed ourselves to achieving a reduction in the death rate from cancer among people aged under 75 by one fifth by 2010. That translates into saving 100,000 lives. The Secretary of State for Health has made clear his personal commitment to tackling the big killers: cancer and coronary heart disease.
If we are to meet those targets on cancer, that will mean not only tackling lung cancer, including among women, but taking the right approach to cancer across the board. It will mean not simply improving treatment services, vital though that is, and reducing waiting times, essential though that is, but having a full multi-pronged strategy to bring together prevention, early detection, screening, access to services, treatment and research—action across the board.
We have already taken several important steps towards an integrated approach towards cancers in general and lung cancer in particular. Professor Mike Richards, our national cancer director, is responsible for improving cancer care across the board. In particular, with lung cancer prevention is extremely important. Given the technology and treatments that are available, we can make the greatest difference through prevention of lung cancer. That is the way to save the lives of both women and men.
My hon. Friend is right to say that lung cancer is highly preventable. Smoking is the primary cause of 90 per cent. of lung cancers. We know, too, that 70 per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up. Put simply, if we can support more smokers and help them to quit, we will make a big impact on lung cancer.
Today's epidemic of lung cancer among women largely reflects the fact that women took up smoking from the second world war onwards. The current alarmingly high rates of smoking among young girls will, if we do nothing, lead in due course to many more lung cancer deaths among women in the first few decades of the new millennium.
Recent research suggests that women smokers may be more genetically susceptible to tobacco carcinogens than men and therefore more likely to contract the main types of lung cancer at every level of exposure to cigarette smoke. That is all the more reason to take seriously the smoking epidemic among women.
The Government's programme to tackle smoking was outlined in "Smoking Kills", which was published in December 1998. In "Smoking Kills", we committed ourselves to achieving three clear and strong targets: a reduction in smoking throughout all social groups, so that the overall prevalence of smoking in the adult population falls from 28 per cent. to 24 per cent. by 2010; a reduction in the number of 11 to 15-year-olds smoking regularly from 13 per cent. to 9 per cent. over the same period; and a reduction in the number of pregnant smokers from 23 per cent. to 15 per cent..
Clearly, to achieve the pregnant smokers target, we must ensure that our campaign reaches women. To achieve the reduction in the number of 11 to 15-year-olds who smoke regularly, we need specifically to ensure that we target young women smokers.
As my hon. Friend said, we backed up that commitment with more than £100 million, over three years, for smoking cessation and tobacco education. There will therefore be additional support for smoking cessation in the 26 health action zones. Those services are now all up and running. Free nicotine replacement therapy for smokers on low incomes will be available, first, in health action zones, and, from April, across the country. Moreover, from April, additional money will be invested to help all health authorities across England to provide specialist smoking cessation services. From next financial year, all smokers who require specialist help should be able to get support. That is a huge step forward. Never before have a Government introduced an overarching campaign to stop smoking.
The United Kingdom is a world leader in providing smoking cessation services to its population. More smokers, particularly more heavily dependent smokers who have been unable to quit without specialist help, should be helped to quit. Providing them with such help will cut the toll of death and disease from smoking, particularly lung cancer deaths. So far, the results show that 55 per cent. of those who are accessing the new smoking cessation services are women. We therefore expect to have a particular impact on women smokers.
Smoking cessation support is only part of the programme. The tobacco education campaign was launched successfully—in December 1999, under the slogan, "Don't give up giving up"—to encourage smokers to persevere until they succeed in quitting. The helpline has received almost 80,000 calls since the campaign started. We are developing ideas for more targeted campaigns, building on the general campaign that we have already launched. As I said, as smoking rates for young girls are alarming, the campaign aimed at young people must aim to have a real impact on that group.
We shall also fulfil our manifesto commitment to ban tobacco advertising. The high court has supported our case to introduce the ban. If the tobacco companies were to drop their opposition to the ban, we would be able to implement it straight away. We estimate that the ban could, in the short term, save 1,500 to 1,600 lives a year.
I take issue with my hon. Friend that the Government might be reluctant to act on smoking because of the impact on tobacco revenue. That is plain wrong. The Government's case on tackling smoking is completely independent of the impact that that might have on tobacco revenue. We have made that case extremely strongly.
It is a public health measure. The Chancellor has made it very clear in his actions on tackling smoking that he supports the public health aspects of the policy.
There is a case for a stronger regulatory framework on tobacco products, and for actions such as tackling tobacco additives. That is one of the issues that we are pursuing in the European framework. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is further action that we have to take—we are taking it—on those issues.
Prevention is the best way of tackling lung cancer. However, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, we also need to work on early detection and screening. Survival rates for cancer are poor, partly because of the difficulty of detecting the condition at an early stage.
Recommendations on national screening programmes are considered by the United Kingdom national screening committee, which advises Ministers on all aspects of screening policy. The NSC assesses proposed new screening programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria, and draws upon the latest research evidence and the skills of specially convened multidisciplinary expert groups.
Currently, screening for lung cancer would not meet the NSC's criteria for a screening programme, because there is no evidence of the effectiveness of screening. More research is needed on that matter. We are aware of recent reports from the United States suggesting that it is possible to detect lung cancer at a stage when it is still susceptible to treatment. We are also aware of the work being done in this country—to which my hon. Friend referred—to examine some of the issues raised in the United States. The NSC will review its position on screening for lung cancer in the light of any robust new evidence.
High quality diagnosis and treatment are at the centre of our commitment to cancer care. Patients and clinicians alike want faster and better care. Patients need to have confidence in the health service and to know that if they have symptoms that could be cancer, they will be able to discuss them with their GP and be referred quickly and appropriately if necessary.
Although more than 220,000 cases of cancer are diagnosed each year, an individual GP is unlikely to see more than a few cases. That is why we are working with primary and secondary care providers, the voluntary sector and patient groups to develop cancer guidelines for primary health care teams, to help them identify those patients most likely to have cancer and to require urgent specialist investigation.
Patients who have suspected cancer want to be seen by a specialist quickly to take away the uncertainty and anxiety. That is why it is so important that we move ahead in implementing the two-week standard for all cases of suspected cancer. That standard of care will apply to all lung cancer patients needing an urgent referral from April this year. That is supported by additional resources to speed access to diagnosis and care.
We must also ensure that all cancer patients, wherever they live, have access to the same high-quality services. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of having access to multi-disciplinary teams. I agree that that is vital. The work being done by the cancer collaboratives, putting patients at the centre of care, following the process through from primary care in multidisciplinary teams and encouraging working together to cut waiting times and improve the quality of care has a huge potential to make a big difference for patients with lung cancer and other cancers as we roll the programme out. We have invested an extra £70 million in cancer services since 1997 and will be investing a further £80 million over the next two years specifically in cancer treatment and diagnosis.
Whatever improvements we manage to make in the prevention and treatment of cancer, we still need to know more and to continue to support research. The Government fund research into cancer in many ways—through the national health service research and development levy and through specific projects, including the development and evaluation of clinical nurse specialist follow-up in the management of patients with lung cancer and a large-scale trial of chemotherapy for all stages of non-small cell lung cancer.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He is right that lung cancer is an increasingly serious issue for women. I hope that I have made clear to him the seriousness with which the Government treat cancer in general and lung cancer in particular among women. We are determined to make a difference on the big killers—cancer and coronary heart disease. The best way to do that is by tackling cancer across the board, through action on prevention, screening, fast access to treatment and high-quality treatment, as well as palliative care. We need to improve the lot of cancer sufferers and prevent far more people—women as well as men—from contracting cancer in the first place.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.